Editor's note:Marta Zaniewki is Vice President of State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) possess a little-known competitive advantage that many regulated professions envy. Their license, obtained in their home state, allows them to practice in all U.S. jurisdictions except Hawaii without prior notification, additional fees, or extra administrative procedures, provided they maintain good standing. Imagine the freedom your state-issued driver's license gives you when traveling by car, and you can understand the business benefits of "CPA mobility"—and the burdens that could arise if this system were to unravel.

CPA mobility is a simple concept, but it was achieved through decades of arduous, coordinated efforts within the accounting profession. It rests on a shared assumption among states of "substantial equivalency" of licenses, the elements of which once had to be lobbied for and enacted into law through an interconnected web of state regulations. To be clear: there is no national CPA license; only states have the authority to grant this designation.

State laws do have minor variations, but the consensus on license equivalency boils down to the three "E's"—150 credit hours of education, passing the CPA exam, and one year of professional experience.

This mobility benefits both CPAs and their employers. For businesses, the primary advantage is savings in time and costs. For example, accountants on a CFO's finance team can now work on projects for business units located almost anywhere in the country. Without the current system allowing mobility, financial executives could be restricted in assigning CPAs to projects.

Recently, there has been much discussion about the accounting talent shortage and how to fix the CPA pipeline. Some have called for lowering the 150-credit-hour education requirement, arguing that the extra year of study beyond a typical bachelor's degree program poses too great a barrier for young people entering the profession. Minnesota has proposed legislation to create an alternative licensing path requiring only 120 hours of education, plus two years of experience.

Here's the problem: if that bill passes, many Minnesota CPAs would no longer be substantially equivalent to CPAs in other states. This would affect their ability to practice outside Minnesota. State boards of accountancy across the U.S. and its territories would have to decide whether Minnesota CPAs are allowed to practice in their jurisdictions, and under what conditions.

For Minnesota CPAs, this could mean additional administrative burdens and fees, the need for additional licenses, and potential disruption of work performed for out-of-state clients, whether virtually or in person. With limited resources, smaller accounting firms could be especially disadvantaged in navigating new compliance restrictions. If other states follow Minnesota's lead, the impact on CPA mobility could be like the endgame of a Jenga tower—remove enough supporting blocks, and the structure collapses.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) is committed to addressing the profession's talent pipeline issues and supports efforts to modernize CPA licensure while protecting the public interest. We have convened an independentNational Pipeline Advisory Group (NPAG)to study potential approaches to solving the talent shortage, including licensure changes. The group plans to release a draft national strategy to address the pipeline issue next month, with the full report to be published this summer.

NPAG has consistently stated that no topic is off the table in its discussions, including potential changes to education requirements. For its part, the AICPA believes that CPA mobility is central to keeping the accounting profession competitive, protecting the public, and delivering quality services to employers and clients. Any changes that could affect mobility must be shaped by broad consensus within the profession, not unilateral action, and based on a full understanding of the costs and benefits of such an approach.