PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-166.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 22, 2015
This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to review the potential of other federal agencies' pending rulemaking proceedings to cause an adverse effect on the cost, time, or difficulty of complying with DOE's current or proposed energy efficiency regulations, guidelines, or standards.
DOE must consult with federal agency heads to identify areas of conflict or overlap between any of its proposed or final regulations, guidelines, or standards and relevant agencies' proposed or final regulations, guidelines, or standards. DOE must also seek public input on any identified conflicts or overlaps.
When there is an identified conflict or overlap, DOE must work with the head of the relevant agency and the public to resolve the conflict or overlap prior to finalizing a rulemaking to ensure that the conflict or overlap does not pose an undue compliance burden on the regulated persons.
People & committees
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-166.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1047 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1047 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1047 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1047 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.