A new package of bills introduced in the Nebraska Legislature, inspired by Elon Musk’s forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is set to continue a game of hack ‘n slash against red tape and regulations on industry in the state.

The “Regulatory Modernization Package” authored by The Platte Institute, a local libertarian/free-market-oriented think-tank, has chosen a different eponymous animal acronym for the initiative — G.O.A.T. (Government Oversight, Accountability, and Transparency).

The GOAT Initiative is comprised of six legislative bills, all seeking to rework the states regulatory landscape in different ways. Each bill has either a republican and democrat lawmakers sponsoring the legislation, presenting a bipartisan front in Nebraska’s technically non-partisan, one-house political body.

Those six lawmakers, plus Speaker of the Legislature John Arch, spoke on these bills during a Jan. 16 press conference in the Capitol Rotunda alongside officials with the Platte Institute, namely, former State Senators Dr. Laura Ebke and Nicole Fox.

“We believe that the time is right for rethinking how we regulate economic activity in our state,” Ebke began the conference, citing President Trump’s forthcoming DOGE department and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds announcing plans to establish a similar agency during her Condition of the State address last week. “The senators introducing legislation in this package have decided not to wait on an advisory body to make recommendations and instead are taking the goat by the horns.”

The six proposals of the G.O.A.T. Initiative are:

(1) The REINS Act, introduced by Sen. Merv Riepe (R) of Omaha, would require legislative review and approval of any regulation with an annual economic impact exceeding $1 million over five years, or $200,000 per year. It will allow the Legislature to reconsider the authorization of legislation if an economic impact statement shows the impact to be significant.

(2) LB 29, introduced by Sen. Danielle Conrad (D) of Lincoln, would codify a 2017 Executive Order from then Governor Pete Ricketts which would mandate regular reviews (every 3 years) of existing regulations and submission of reports to the Legislature.

(3) Establish a Federal Fund Inventory, a bill to be introduced by freshman Sen. Bob Andersen (R) of Omaha, would mandate an audit of federal funds received by Nebraska, except those going to the University of Nebraska and state colleges. The bill would require auditors track how long the grant program lasts, if there are state matching requirements, or if there are maintenance requirements attached. It requires that an operating plan be in place should the federal receipts be reduced by 25% or more from the preceding fiscal year.

(4) A bill to allow for Venue Freedom, or in other words, allowing businesses to resolve disputes with state agencies in their local courts, not necessarily in Lincoln/Lancaster County as is now required by law. This bill is to be introduced by Sen. Tanya Storer (R) of Whitman.

(5) The creation of an Office of Regulatory Management in the executive branch, which would be tasked with conducting cost-benefit analyses of rules and regulations. A similar office established in Virginia was cited as a successful version of this program. This bill is to be introduced by Sen. Dan McKeon (R) of Sweetwater.

(6) Reform to Regulatory Advisories, a bill to be introduced by Sen. Dan Quick (D) of Grand Island, which would prevent regulatory advisories issued by agencies from being binding on businesses and others regulated by the agency unless required to remain in compliance with federal regulations, in which case the binding advisory cannot be stricter than that required by the federal rule.

While Speaker Arch isn’t sponsoring any of these bills, he spoke in support of the package and headlined a related bill he has introduced at the behest of Gov. Jim Pillen — LB 346 — which seeks to eliminate or consolidate the duties of over 40 of the state’s 225 boards, commissions, committees, councils, funds, panels, task forces, etc.

“These bills that are being brought, I think will improve the function of government, and that’s certainly been my passion,” said Arch, noting that certain regulations are established in reaction to a recent event or finding. He said the a periodic review of these regulations, through LB 29, will “make sure that the value that these regulations are providing are still there.”

Speaking on LB 29, Conrad said, “One of the most significant problems when it comes to regulatory reform and bureaucratic bloat is that it gets on autopilot and it evades review… We will ensure that there will be legislative eyes and ears on every rule and regulation that emanates from the bureaucracy on a periodic basis.”

When then Gov. Ricketts first issued this executive order in 2017, according to the Platte Institute, Nebraska had 100,627 rules and regulations on the books. Over several years, this order shrunk that number to 76,201 — a reduction of about 24.3%.

“That was an excellent first start, but we can’t rest on those laurels,” said Conrad.

Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, Chair of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, the committee which all of these bills are likely to be referred to, said the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 reversal of the Chevron deference “generated a great deal of national interest of regulatory reform.”

The deference, set in 1984 in a case involving the oil giant, gave federal agencies wide powers to interpret laws and decide the best ways to apply them. In ending the deference, the conservative-majority court weakened the powers of federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Every Senator swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it’s our responsibility to honor that commitment by ensuring the legislative process remains the cornerstone of decision making in our state,” said Sanders. “I look forward to hearing [these bills in committee] and finding ways to advance as many of these measures as possible.”

Officials with the Platte Institute repeatedly thanked the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Nebraska chapter and it’s director, John Gage, for helping author the package. Founded in 2004, AFP is a conservative political advocacy group affiliated with Charles Koch and the late David Koch, who have been prominent funders of think-tanks that lobby to oppose environmental regulation.

Asked for an estimate on the cost-saving potential of this package, Ebke cited a recent study done for the Platte Institute by Patrick McLaughlin, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, another free-market-oriented think-tank, also with ties to the Koch family.

McLaughlin’s study argues that regulatory “burdens” can hamper the growth rate of a state’s gross domestic product (GDP), or the total value of everything a state produces in goods and services. While a growing GDP is a useful sign of economic health, it’s not the whole story. Economists often look at other indicators — like income distribution, environmental health, and quality of life — to get a fuller picture. McLaughlin argues for a generic “one in, one out” or “net zero” approach to state regulations.

Leaning on studies produced by the Mercatus Center, McLaughlin also claims that government regulations on industry impose a disproportionate cost on low-income households. The data framework used to draw this conclusion does not account for any benefits to wellbeing reaped by regulatory safeguards.

According to Mercatus’ methodology, the state facing the “worst” federal regulatory burden is Louisiana. As is the case, Louisiana has a large presence of certain highly regulated sectors, such as “chemical products manufacturing” and “oil and gas extraction.” The Center for Progressive Reform, a left-of-center political research and advocacy group, sites the 2010 BP oil spill and Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” — an 85-mile stretch in the River Parishes of Louisiana which is home to over 200 petrochemical plants and refineries — as reasons for increasing/maintaining regulations on industry. Regulations which have resulted from these occurrences are, albeit, lumped together pejoratively with all regulations in the Mercatus methodology.

“No one here is saying that we’re going to eliminate every single rule and regulation,” Conrad said to reporters when asked about striking the right balance. “What we are saying is that rules and regulations should only be utilized under clear legislative guidance to advance consumer safety, public health and welfare.”

“When we remove red-tape and require precision in lawmaking through [the legislature], we’re standing up for the people,” she continued. “There will still be rules and regulations for certain areas we cannot legislate to a certain level of precision. But they should only be there to protect the consumer’s health, welfare, and safety. They shouldn’t be there to expand the power of unelected bureaucrats.”

Critics of this package may cite the powerful influence of money in politics and partisan nature of the state legislature as reason not to trust the fate of each regulation, on a fluid basis, with an elected political body. But, as warped as it can seem, the will of the people of Nebraska is ideally reflected in it’s lawmakers who are held accountable by voters.

Lawmakers will begin to hold hearings on these bill this week.