Numerous federal environmental laws set standards that state laws and regulations must meet. States may enact more stringent laws and regulations if they so choose.

HB 27 applied to the adoption of a "major environmental rule" by a state agency, if the rule:

• exceeds a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law;
• exceeds an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law;
• exceeds a requirement of an agreement or contract between the state and federal governments to implement a state or federal program; or
• is adopted solely under the general powers of the agency instead of under specific state law.

"Major environmental rule" was defined as a rule specifically intended to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state.

In these cases, HB 27 required state agencies to conduct a "regulatory analysis" before proposing the regulation. The regulatory analysis must: (1) identify the problem the rule is intended to address; (2) determine whether a new rule is necessary to address the problem; and (3) consider the benefits and costs of the rule in relation to state agencies, local governments, the public, the regulated community, and the environment.

HB 27 also required an agency proposing a major environmental rule to prepare an "impact analysis" on the anticipated effects of the proposed rule, that must:

HB 27 then required the state agency to prepare a final regulatory analysis, explaining (among other things) why the proposed rule most effectively combines the desired result with the least economic cost, and why the agency agrees or disagrees with the public comment received.

The bill also provided for any person who submitted public comment to challenge in court the validity of a major environmental rule that is not proposed and adopted according to the above requirements, within 30 days of the effective date of the rule.

Proponents of HB 27 argued that the legislation took a "look before you leap" approach to ensure that state agencies adequately consider the costs and benefits of proposed environmental regulations.

Opponents of HB 27 called this approach "paralysis by analysis" and argued that HB 27 would have a chilling effect on all laws that protect the public from pollution. They also noted the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act already provides ample direction for state agency rulemaking.

HB 27 failed to gain the two-thirds vote necessary to introduce a non-budget bill in a budget session, 36-23 (1 excused).