Affordability and Regulatory Reform: The Week in the Center for Regulatory Freedom

One of the most persistent myths in Washington is that affordability problems can be solved by layering on more regulation, more paperwork, and more federal control. In reality, excessive regulation is often the very thing driving up costs—whether families are paying for housing, health care, energy, or everyday consumer goods.

Last week, the Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) filed comments across a wide range of federal agencies. While these proceedings covered very different policy areas—from prescription drugs to energy reliability to community banking—they were united by a single principle: affordability follows from common sense regulation, not regulatory accumulation.

Taken together, these filings reflect a conservative governing philosophy grounded in restraint, accountability, competition, and respect for real-world economics.

Affordability Starts With Competition, Not Paperwork

In the prescription drug market, affordability depends heavily on whether competition is allowed to arrive on time. Patent exclusivity exists for a reason—it rewards innovation—but it is not meant to be indefinite or expandable through bureaucratic gamesmanship.

CRF urged regulators to keep patent term administration narrowly focused and disciplined. When paperwork becomes a tool to delay competition rather than administer the law, consumers pay the price in higher drug costs. Clear rules that end exclusivity exactly when Congress intended help generic medicines reach patients sooner, driving down prices without undermining research and development.

This same principle applies across the economy: competition lowers prices, but only if regulation does not block it.

Reliable Energy Is Affordable Energy

Energy affordability and national security are inseparable from reliability. When the power grid fails—especially during extreme weather—families pay the price through outages, emergency expenses, and higher long-term costs.

CRF supported practical steps to improve coordination between natural gas pipelines and the electric grid, particularly during periods of system stress. These reforms focus on better information sharing, not new mandates or sweeping regulatory expansions. They recognize a simple truth: many reliability failures are caused by coordination breakdowns, not a lack of resources.

Just as importantly, CRF emphasized the growing dependence of American households on natural gas—not only for heating but also for emergency power generation. Policies that weaken domestic energy infrastructure or impose unnecessary costs do not just affect producers; they put families at risk when they need reliability the most.

Energy policy should strengthen resilience, not undermine it through regulatory overreach.

Community Banks Matter for Local Affordability

Large national institutions do not meet every credit need, especially in rural areas and small communities. Community banks play a vital role in providing credit to small businesses, farmers, and families who rely on relationship-based lending rather than one-size-fits-all models.

CRF supported regulatory reforms that streamline licensing requirements for well-capitalized, well-managed community banks. Excessive paperwork does not make the financial system safer—it simply diverts resources away from lending and innovation.

When community banks are burdened with unnecessary procedural hurdles, consumers face fewer choices, tighter credit, and higher costs. Risk-based regulation, tailored to the size and complexity of institutions, protects safety and soundness while preserving access to credit where it is needed most.

Housing Affordability Requires Supply, Not More Mandates

Few issues illustrate regulatory failure more clearly than housing affordability. For years, federal policy has focused almost exclusively on the demand side—subsidies, mandates, and compliance requirements—while ignoring the fundamental driver of high home prices: a shortage of housing supply.

CRF warned that expanding subsidies and credit requirements in supply-constrained markets does not lower prices. Instead, it increases bidding pressure and pushes prices even higher, especially for first-time buyers.

Worse, conditioning access to core financial system liquidity on compliance metrics risks distorting incentives and increasing long-term risk. True affordability is achieved by allowing more housing to be built, reducing regulatory barriers, and preserving market discipline—not by adding layers of paperwork that treat symptoms while worsening the disease.

Regulatory Shock Raises Energy Prices

Energy costs are shaped not just by markets, but by regulatory predictability. Sudden cost increases imposed by federal rules—especially during periods of tight credit—can have immediate and damaging effects.

CRF supported extending compliance deadlines for onshore oil and gas bonding requirements to avoid forcing small and independent producers out of the market. Abrupt regulatory shocks reduce domestic production, eliminate jobs, and raise prices for consumers—all without delivering meaningful environmental benefits in the near term.

Flexibility and realism are not signs of regulatory weakness; they are hallmarks of responsible governance. Agencies should learn from implementation experience and adjust accordingly, rather than doubling down on policies that produce unintended harm.

Emergency Powers Should Not Become Permanent

The COVID-19 pandemic required extraordinary measures, but emergencies do not justify permanent expansion of government authority. CRF supported rescinding outdated COVID-era mandates in the Head Start program that no longer serve a public health purpose.

These requirements added paperwork and complexity while diverting limited resources away from education and child development. Removing them restores focus to Head Start’s core mission and reinforces a basic principle of good governance: emergency rules should end when the emergency ends.

Allowing crisis-era regulations to linger indefinitely undermines public trust and encourages regulatory inertia. Responsible administration requires not only issuing rules, but knowing when to remove them.

Health Care Affordability Is a Supply Problem

Health care affordability is often framed as a pricing or utilization issue, but at its core, it is a supply problem. Demand for medical care continues to grow, while physician supply remains constrained by training bottlenecks and regulatory barriers.

CRF urged policymakers to treat physician training and medical workforce capacity as central affordability issues. At the same time, excessive reporting and documentation requirements consume scarce clinical time, reducing access without improving outcomes.

Price transparency is essential—but only if it produces information patients can actually use. Transparency that exists only on paper does little to discipline costs or empower consumers. Less paperwork, more doctors, and usable information are the building blocks of a more affordable health care system.

Technology Transitions Should Be Market-Driven

Finally, CRF cautioned against regulatory creep in technology transitions, particularly in broadcasting. Nearly a decade into the voluntary rollout of Next Generation television, unresolved questions remain—but uncertainty alone is not evidence of consumer harm.

Mandates, equipment requirements, and forced upgrades impose real costs on households and innovators. CRF urged regulators to maintain a permissive, market-driven approach that respects consumer choice and avoids repeating the costly mistakes of government-managed transitions.

Innovation flourishes when regulators show humility and restraint, not when they substitute speculation for evidence.

The Conservative Case for Regulatory Restraint

Across these proceedings, a clear pattern emerges. Affordability problems are rarely caused by too little regulation. More often, they are caused by regulations that are misaligned with reality, economics, and incentives. Conservatives believe in strong government where it is necessary, and restrained government where markets work better. That principle applies whether we are talking about drug prices, housing costs, energy reliability, health care access, or consumer technology.

Common sense regulation is not anti-consumer—it is pro-consumer. It protects competition, lowers costs, strengthens resilience, and respects the limits of government authority. That is the approach CRF continues to advance, and it is the approach America needs if we are serious about restoring affordability and opportunity for working families.