Posted on May 25, 2017 by Mark Walker
Trump’s 2-for-1 Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017) requires that two existing regulations be eliminated for each newly enacted regulation in order to control regulatory costs and burdens. The EO requires that the total incremental cost of all new and repealed regulations in FY 2017 be $0 or less. The EO applies to most federal agencies, including the EPA.
Can anyone seriously contend that we cannot afford to get rid of some existing federal regulations? Apparently yes – the idea was immediately dubbed by some as “ridiculous”. A lawsuit has already been filed challenging the EO as facially arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.
Fourteen States recently filed an Amici Curiae brief in the lawsuit supporting the EO, pointing out that numerous Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, have previously issued executive orders seeking to reduce the number of federal regulations and the overall regulatory burden.
The notion of eliminating one or more existing regulations for each new regulation in order to reduce costs is nothing new. The Netherlands, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have all previously enacted similar policies. The UK currently has a 3-for-1 policy, which is estimated to have saved billions.
Certainly the 2-for-1 policy presents administrative and procedural challenges. There is the sticky problem of estimating costs, as the EO is intended to address total opportunity costs (opportunities foregone by society as a whole – workers, businesses, consumers, households, etc.), and not simply business compliance costs. In addition, the repeal of existing regulations must be done in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which itself can be time consuming and costly.
The EO contains a savings clause that says no existing regulations can be repealed where prohibited by law. Therefore, regulations expressly required by law without the consideration of costs cannot be repealed pursuant to the EO. However, discretionary regulations are fair game. Once again, we’ll have to wait and see how this EO holds up after court scrutiny.