Table of contents
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Breakdown by commenter type.
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
How each type splits across stance.
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Zero-based regulation | Administrative procedure act violations | Automatic sunset provisions |
|---|---|---|---|
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; Air Movement and Control Association International; American Lighting Association; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Consumer Technol Trade associationSupport A coalition of manufacturing trade associations supports the Department of Energy's decision not to include specific ene | · | ||
Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP) and Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE) AdvocacyOppose The Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP) and Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE) oppo | |||
Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council AdvocacyOppose The Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council submitted joint comme | · | · | |
FGA Action AdvocacySupport FGA Action supports the Department of Energy's proposed zero-based regulation rule, which would require the agency to pe | · | · | |
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law AdvocacyOppose The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law opposes the Department of Energy's Sunset Rule, | |||
The Samuel Lawrence Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Samuel Lawrence Foundation opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" proposal, arguing that the proposed sunset provisions |
3 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
The Samuel Lawrence Foundation opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" proposal, arguing that the proposed sunset provisions are operationally unfeasible given the Department of Energy's limited bandwidth and the complexity of the regulations involved. They express concern that the strict timelines could lead to regulatory vacuums and argue that the DOE needs more time to conduct proper cost-benefit analyses and public comment periods.
The Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council submitted joint comments opposing the "Zero-Based Regulating" proposed rule. They argue that the rule is unlawful because it fails to provide adequate notice and comment for the mass sunsetting of regulations, lacks statutory authority, and is arbitrary and capricious.
The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law opposes the Department of Energy's Sunset Rule, arguing that it is arbitrary, capricious, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They contend that the rule bypasses meaningful public input, ignores statutory mandates, and fails to consider the costs, benefits, and security implications of sunsetting specific programs.
The Center for Biological Diversity opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" rule, arguing that the proposed "sunsetting" of regulations is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act. They contend that the rule lacks proper statutory authority, fails to provide adequate notice and comment, and threatens environmental protections.
The Center for Biological Diversity opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" rule, arguing that the proposed "sunsetting" of regulations is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act. They contend that the rule lacks proper statutory authority, fails to provide adequate notice and comment, and threatens environmental protections.
Radiation Free Lakeland, a nuclear safety group, endorses a comment from Nuclear Free Hawaii opposing the proposed rule. They argue that the rule's "sunset" mechanism is an attempt to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements for repealing regulations and that it arbitrarily threatens worker protections and cleanup obligations.
Lynda Williams, representing Nuclear Free Hawaii, argues that the "Zero-Based Regulation Review" rule is an attempt to evade the Administrative Procedure Act by relabeling the repeal of regulations as "automatic expiration." She contends that the rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to provide specific justifications for sunsetting diverse regulations and potentially abandons congressionally mandated duties regarding nuclear waste and worker safety.
The Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP) and Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE) oppose the DOE's "Zero-Based Regulating" rule. They argue that the sweeping sunsetting of existing regulations is improvident, lacks sufficient risk analysis, and could lead to serious unintended consequences for public health, safety, and the environment.
Attorneys General from 14 states and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts oppose the "Zero-Based Regulating" proposed rule, arguing it is procedurally defective and arbitrary. They contend that the Department of Energy failed to provide adequate notice, individualized analysis, or a reasoned explanation for sunsetting hundreds of regulations, thereby denying the public a meaningful opportunity to comment.
Sherry Pollack, Co-Founder of 350Hawaii.org, opposes the Department of Energy's "Zero-Based Regulating" rule. The organization argues that the rule constitutes an illegal rollback of congressionally mandated environmental regulations and demands that the DOE withdraw the proposal.
