Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill requires the Department of Energy, specified offices in the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose automatic expiration (sunset) dates on covered regulations in enumerated statutory areas. Existing covered regulations must be amended within 90 days to expire one year after that amendment; regulations promulgated after enactment must expire within 5 years unless the agency head certifies and notifies OMB that the rule has a net deregulatory effect.
Progressives emphasize the risk that sunsets will remove environmental, safety, and climate protections; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and increased energy access.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change imposing a uniform sunset regime on a defined set of energy‑related agency regulations.
This bill requires the Department of Energy, specified offices in the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose automatic expiration (sunset) dates on covered regulations in enumerated statutory areas.
Existing covered regulations must be amended within 90 days to expire one year after that amendment; regulations promulgated after enactment must expire within 5 years unless the agency head certifies and notifies OMB that the rule has a net deregulatory effect.
Agencies may extend sunsets by up to five years at a time only after public notice/comment on costs and benefits and an agency determination, with streamlined extension authority for amendments judged to be deregulatory.
On content alone, the bill is a sweeping, ideologically salient deregulatory restructuring of multiple major federal programs. Such omnibus regulatory rollback mechanisms are typically contentious and difficult to pass without significant amendment, compromise, or packaging into larger must-pass legislation. The short time windows for existing regulations to be amended (90 days to impose 1-year sunsets) and lack of transition funding or explicit carve-outs reduce the bill’s immediate practicality and increase resistance from affected stakeholders and agencies, lowering its standalone chance of becoming law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change imposing a uniform sunset regime on a defined set of energy‑related agency regulations. It is precise in defining covered agencies and regulations and in setting timelines and extension procedures, but it omits key fiscal, enforcement, and exception handling details.
Progressives emphasize the risk that sunsets will remove environmental, safety, and climate protections; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and increased energy access.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize the risk that sunsets will remove environmental, safety, and climate protections; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and increased energy access.
This persona would likely view the bill skeptically and largely unfavorably.
They would see the mandatory sunsets and strict expiration process as a mechanism that could rapidly eliminate environmental, safety, and consumer protections administered by DOE, DOI offices, and FERC unless agencies repeatedly rejustify them.
They would worry that the administrative burden and political pressure could lead to the loss of longstanding safeguards for climate, public health, and worker safety.
A centrist would see legitimate value in periodic review of regulations and reducing unnecessary regulatory accumulation, but would be concerned about practical implementation and potential unintended consequences.
They would weigh the need for regulatory predictability against the benefits of pruning obsolete rules, and look for safeguards to prevent loss of critical protections or service disruptions.
They would likely view the bill as a mixed proposal that could be acceptable if amended to ensure robust analytical standards, adequate agency resources, and clear transitional protections.
This persona would generally view the bill favorably as a tool to curb regulatory accumulation and lower burdens on energy development and markets.
They would praise automatic sunsets as forcing agencies to justify rules periodically and enabling removal of unnecessary constraints that hinder energy production and infrastructure.
They would appreciate the deregulatory exemption allowing permanent treatment for rules that reduce regulatory burdens.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a sweeping, ideologically salient deregulatory restructuring of multiple major federal programs. Such omnibus regulatory rollback mechanisms are typically contentious and difficult to pass without significant amendment, compromise, or packaging into larger must-pass legislation. The short time windows for existing regulations to be amended (90 days to impose 1-year sunsets) and lack of transition funding or explicit carve-outs reduce the bill’s immediate practicality and increase resistance from affected stakeholders and agencies, lowering its standalone chance of becoming law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize the risk that sunsets will remove environmental, safety, and climate protections; conservatives emphasize regulatory…
On content alone, the bill is a sweeping, ideologically salient deregulatory restructuring of multiple major federal programs. Such omnibus…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive change imposing a uniform sunset regime on a defined set of energy‑related agency regulations. It is precise in defining covered agencies and regulat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.