1/ *cracks knuckles and begins typing* Dear Twitter diary, I have some thoughts about the Biden Day One memo on Modernizing Regulatory Review... https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review/?s=03

2/ At first blush, this is much, much better than I was expecting. It appears to reflect *nearly* everything we urged the Biden-Harris administration to undertake as part of the @CPRBlog's "Beyond 12866" Initiative, which https://progressivereform.org/our-work/regulatory-policy/progressive-plan-reforming-regulatory-system/

3/ Also, the language and tone are right. The underlying vision seems to be right. A lot of it seems like it was directly lifted from our work. And it is happily comprehensive (see, e.g., the attention it gives to revising Circular A-4).

4/ But there are some red flags. One is that it “reaffirms the basic principles” of EOs 12866 and 13563. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on which principles and how basic.

5/ Some, at their most general level, are just fine. Others are strong statements of neoliberal philosophy, which has governed regulatory policy for too long. If *those* principles are reaffirmed, that will create a needless cul-de-sac that will ultimately doom this process.

6/ There are two levels of devils here (see what I did there?). The first is in the actual recommendations that this process turns out. And, as noted, those could be restricted by how rigidly they adhere to the most problematic principles of EOs 12866/13563.

7/ The second is implementation. The recommendations could "say" the right things, but ultimately be meaningless in practice. One big example is its call to better account for distributional issues as part of regulatory analysis.

8/ Recall that EO 13563 has already gestured in this direction. And it didn't make a bit of difference. Instead, it was business as usual.

9/ And both those devils bring us back to the million dollar question: Who will be Biden's pick as OIRA administrator? If it's a centrist in the Cass Sunstein mold, you could pretty much guarantee those recommendations will be weak tea.

10/ Alternatively, even if the recommendations are good, they could be implemented in a way that renders them meaningless. Recall that it was Sunstein that presided over the nothing-burger that was 13563. Blame lays at his feet.

11/ But, if the OIRA administrator ends up being someone with a clear progressive vision of regulation, this could turn out to be not just the most transformative change in regulatory policy in US history since EO 12866...

12/ It could be even more transformative than Reagan's 12291, which sent us down this rabbit hole in the first place. That's the kind big bold thinking we need. That's what the current times demand. That's what the American public expects.

13/ One other small thing that gives me a bit of heartburn is the separate Biden EO on climate and its emphasis on the Social Cost of Carbon.

14/ A lot of progressives are cheering this move as indicative of the Biden administration's commitment to aggressive climate action.

15/ But, I look at this as a potentially worrying sign that the Biden administration's regulatory actions will still be constrained by a cost-benefit analysis straightjacket. After all, why worry so much about the social cost of carbon?

16/ Ultimately, we'll have to see how these two tracks move ahead and our reconciled.

17/ Other thoughts may occur to me, and I will update this thread accordingly. Stay tuned.