|
California lawmakers are advancing a slate of regulatory oversight bills this year that could reshape how the state evaluates major rules — with potentially significant implications for agriculture, food production and the broader supply chain.
At the center of the debate is whether regulators, particularly the California Air Resources Board, should more explicitly quantify how rules affect costs tied to farming, food processing and distribution — from diesel and electricity to packaging, transportation and retail prices.
Senate Bill 981 by Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its economic analysis of major regulations. He says that would include impacts on gasoline prices, electric bills, food and goods prices, housing costs and business costs.
For agriculture, that scope touches nearly every stage of production and delivery — from fuel powering tractors to refrigeration, trucking and grocery store operations.
Niello framed the bill as a response to rising costs affecting consumers and producers alike.
“Food and rent are up 25% on average, and utilities and gas are up 40% on average,” he told a policy committee at a recent hearing. “Now certainly, this is not entirely because of air resources regulations. But with affordability being a top-of-mind issue for our citizens as well as this body, it's important to know how regulations impact the cost of living.”
Agriculture and business groups back the bill, arguing current analyses fail to capture downstream impacts on food prices and farm operations.
Marlon Lara, California Restaurant Association (LinkedIn)Marlon Lara, legislative director at the California Restaurant Association, said the regulatory impacts “aren't apparent until very later on in the process. Doing it this way helps us stay informed.”
Western Growers also supports the measure, alongside manufacturers and energy groups that play key roles in the food supply chain.
Opponents warned the bill could slow environmental rulemaking that also benefits agriculture, particularly through improved air quality and worker health.
Bill Magavern, policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, said CARB already faces lengthy processes and that its current economic impact analyses, known as SRIA, “has added considerably to delays in rule makings” and the bill would add yet more red tape.
Magavern also argued the types of predictions required — such as fuel prices — are inherently uncertain, since CARB staff “don't know what the cost of gasoline is going to be.”
Environmental Quality Committee Chair Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, raised broader concerns about focusing too narrowly on regulatory costs when communities and industries like agriculture face multiple drivers of rising prices.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
“The cost of transitioning to clean energy is not the largest contributor to the affordability crisis,” she said, pointing instead to “high inflation, lack of housing and a disrupted supply chain.”
Limiting regulatory impact studies
While SB 981 would expand cost analysis, SB 1123 by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, could narrow when those detailed reviews are required, with implications for how quickly agriculture-related regulations move forward.
The bill would require agencies to factor in benefits — including consumer savings and public health gains — when determining whether a rule exceeds the $50 million threshold that currently triggers a full economic review.
Wiener said the rules can delay beneficial policies that affect workers and public health.
“Right now, there's a powerful disincentive for a state agency promulgating regulations to save businesses and consumers money,” he said in a separate committee hearing.
He added that counting both costs and benefits toward the threshold creates a paradox.
“If a regulation will have $1 in cost and $50 million in benefits and savings to individuals and businesses, it exceeds [the threshold] and triggers the SRIA analysis. That makes no sense.”
Supporters, including labor and environmental groups, pointed to delays in safety rules that can affect agricultural and industrial workers.
Doug Subers, government affairs director at California Professional Firefighters, cited a yearslong delay in updating safety standards driven “in large part by internal discussion of whether or not the standardized regulatory impact analysis was necessary.”
But agricultural and business groups warn SB 1123 could undercut the very analyses they want expanded.
Robert Moutrie, vice president for advocacy at the California Chamber of Commerce, said the bill would mean “SRIA analysis will essentially never be triggered” and that it would be “functionally eliminating SRIA in the vast majority of cases.”
For agriculture, that raises concerns about losing detailed economic reviews of major rules affecting fuel standards, equipment requirements and emissions limits that can drive farm costs.
Broader package could reshape oversight
SB 981 and SB 1123 are part of a wider package of bills that could significantly affect how regulations impacting agriculture are reviewed, approved and updated.
AB 2366 by Asm. A
Asm. Anamarie Ávila Farías, D-Martineznamarie Ávila Farías, D-Martinez, would require agencies to analyze cost-of-living impacts across all regulations — including those affecting food production and distribution.
“While existing law requires agencies to consider economic impacts for certain regulations, these analyses have not adequately communicated the true cost of regulations experienced by everyday Californians,” she said at a committee hearing.
A previous version of the bill was held in committee last year.
SB 885 by Sen. Tony Strickland, R–Huntington Beach, would go further by requiring legislative approval of major regulations — potentially including CARB rules affecting diesel, fertilizer production or food processing.
“SB 885 restores accountability to where it belongs: with the Legislature and with the legislators who are elected and answer to the people of California,” said Strickland.
Supporters argue that would give industries a stronger voice through elected representatives. Opponents warn it could delay time-sensitive rules, including those addressing air quality in agricultural regions.
A related bill, SB 986 by Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, would also give lawmakers a formal role in major regulations by creating a 60-day legislative review period, requiring an informational hearing and allowing the Legislature to reject a rule before it takes effect.
SB 1161 by Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, R- Santa Clarita, would require CARB to analyze impacts on low- and middle-income households — a key concern raised for farmworkers and rural communities.
“It simply requires CARB to do what we should have been doing all along: tell people in plain English what a regulation will cost their household before it takes effect — not buried, not after the fact, not in a 300-page report,” said Valladares.
Committee leaders described the bill as a compromise approach.
“SB 1161 is a healthy middle ground … while also putting working-class Californians first,” said Blakespear.
SB 1239 by Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones would require CARB to update its economic analysis when regulations change late in the process — a common issue for industries like agriculture that must plan around evolving compliance costs.
“SB 1239 is a targeted transparency measure,” said Jones. “It simply ensures that economic analysis keeps pace with the regulation as it evolves.”
With lawmakers facing sweeping spending cuts this session, the money to implement these measures will be scarce, creating an uphill battle for the bills. SB 885 and SB 1239 were immediately voted down in their first hearings, while the others await critical votes next week in the Appropriations committees to advance.
