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 Main Street Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the Department of Energy's proposal to establish a structured framework for periodic retrospective review and conditional sunset provisions. They argue that this approach strengthens regulatory accountability, improves administrative efficiency, and provides a foundation for continuous regulatory quality improvement through simplification and modernization.
The Main Street Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the Department of Energy's proposal to establish a structured framework for periodic retrospective review and conditional sunset provisions. They argue that this approach strengthens regulatory accountability, improves administrative efficiency, and provides a foundation for continuous regulatory quality improvement through simplification and modernization.
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.
Battelle Memorial Institute, the operator of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), opposes the proposed sunsetting of several Department of Energy regulations. They argue that removing these regulations would create uncertainty, increase liability, stifle research innovation, and lead to inconsistent standards and pricing across the DOE complex.
A coalition of advocacy organizations, including the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the Natural Resources Defense Council, supports the Department of Energy's decision to avoid sunsetting energy conservation standards. They argue that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prohibits the Department from weakening standards and that sunsetting them would harm consumers, create stranded investments for manufacturers, and undermine regulatory certainty.
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.
Our Children’s Trust, a law firm dedicated to representing children's rights, opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" rule. They argue that the rule is unconstitutional, lacks scientific integrity, and will cause irreparable harm to children's health and rights by facilitating fossil fuel development and dismantling environmental protections.
Persistence Analytics Group LLC supports the concept of disciplined regulatory review but argues that the Department of Energy must implement it with rigorous evidence-based risk screening. They advocate for a structured process to ensure that regulations are not allowed to expire automatically without verifying that such actions won't compromise energy security, safety, or national security.
Tri-Valley CAREs, a nonprofit organization, opposes the "Zero-Based Regulating" rule because it could lead to the automatic expiration of critical safety, security, and whistleblower protection regulations. They argue that any changes or repeals of such rules should occur through a transparent, public process rather than an automatic sunset mechanism.
