Last month, Virginia Governor Spanberger issued Executive Order 17 outlining her Administration’s regulatory management procedures. While the order didn’t completely abandon the regulatory modernization efforts of the previous administration, there are some significant differences from Governor Youngkin’s Executive Order 19 that Virginia’s regulated community would be wise to pay attention to. At first glance the differences in regulatory approaches between the two governors appear to be more continuity than change; however, the changes that do exist reveal an important shift in governing philosophy. Governor Youngkin’s philosophy toward regulatory reform was unapologetically in favor of reducing regulatory costs – and his efforts were quite successful. Governor Youngkin’s approach to reducing regulatory burdens and costs led to Virginia agencies achieving some impressive savings.
It appears that Governor Spanberger’s philosophy toward regulatory reform will focus less on reducing regulatory costs and burdens, and instead on improving the overall efficiency of the regulatory process. Ultimately, the devil is always in the details and how Governor Spanberger develops and deploys her regulatory policies and procedures will ultimately tell a lot more than what Governor Spanberger wrote in this EO.
What Stayed the Same: A Shared Foundation
Let’s start with the orders’ similarities. Both Executive Order 19 and Executive Order 17 were issued pursuant to the Virginia Administrative Process Act, particularly §§ 2.2-4013 and 2.2-4017 of the Code of Virginia, which require each governor to establish procedures for reviewing state agency regulations. Both orders preserve the Governor’s statutory authority to review regulations, require agencies to justify regulatory actions, and maintain a rigorous executive review process before regulations become final.
In many respects, Executive Order 17 reads as an evolution rather than a replacement. It continues requirements for:
- Early consultation with the Office of the Attorney General;
- Detailed Agency Background Documents explaining proposed regulatory actions;
- Economic impact analyses by the Department of Planning and Budget;
- Secretarial and gubernatorial review before publication;
- Public participation throughout the rulemaking process;
- Periodic review of existing regulations.
Spanberger’s order also retained many of the core features that have been part of Virginia’s regulatory process intact. Specifically, both executive orders continue to require:
- Attorney General review for legal sufficiency;
- Department of Planning and Budget economic impact analysis;
- Cabinet secretary review;
- Governor’s Office oversight;
- Public notice and comment;
- Periodic review of existing regulations;
- Transparency through the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall system.
The basic architecture of Virginia’s regulatory review process remains stable regardless of which party controls the Governor’s Office. For regulated industries and agency staff, these procedural similarities should provide welcome continuity.
Executive Order 17 Retreats from Proven Regulatory Reform
Although the procedural framework in Executive Order 17 remains familiar, its most consequential, and disappointing, change was the full recission of the Office of Regulatory Management (ORM).
ORM did more than ask agencies to write “better” regulations. It created a measurable, accountable regulatory reduction program that identified unnecessary requirements, reduced burdens, and improved permitting times. Just recently, Americans for Prosperity highlighted Virginia’s ORM as model for other states to follow. ORM was a small but powerful institution that delivered measurable economic benefits, improved transparency, and strengthened trust in government.
In just a few years, Youngkin’s regulatory reform initiative eliminated or streamlined more than 88,000 regulatory requirements and cut millions of words from guidance documents. These changes were not merely cosmetic—they generated over $1.2 billion in annual savings for Virginians—and did so at little cost to Virgina taxpayers. A key component of that program which is gone was a mandatory 25% cost reduction.
Importantly, these cost savings did not come at the expense of public health and safety, but instead prioritized repealing outdated, redundant, or unnecessarily burdensome regulations while preserving core protections.
Executive Order 17 moves away from that successful model. It rescinds ORM and replaces the prior emphasis on measurable burden reduction with a broader instruction on regulatory efficiency. Those are worthwhile principles, but they are also familiar principles. On their own, they do not create the same discipline, urgency, or accountability that came from requiring agencies to find and remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Without a clear reduction target, a dedicated office charged with driving reform, or a bias toward eliminating unnecessary burdens, state agencies are likely to revert to business as usual rather than continuous improvement.
The Bottom Line: Legislature Should Codify ORM
If Virginia lawmakers want to preserve the most successful elements of the Youngkin administration’s reform efforts, they should codify them in statute rather than leaving them dependent on future governors. The General Assembly could establish a permanent Office of Regulatory Management, require regular reviews of existing regulations and guidance documents, and maintain transparent performance metrics for agencies.
These reforms helped produce measurable reductions in regulatory burdens, improve permitting efficiency, and increase transparency. By institutionalizing these accountability mechanisms, legislators can ensure Virginia continues evaluating whether regulations are still serving the public rather than simply accumulating over time.
Graham Owens is a Regulatory Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity.
