Comment on FR Doc # 2026-10727

Comments of Persistence Analytics Group LLC Regarding Zero-Based Regulating Docket No. DOE-HQ-2025-0603 Persistence Analytics Group LLC submits these comments regarding the Department of Energy’s Zero-Based Regulating initiative. PAG supports a disciplined review of existing regulations to determine whether they remain necessary, useful, clear, cost-effective, and aligned with current energy, infrastructure, reliability, national-security, and market conditions. Zero-based review should not be treated only as a deregulatory exercise. It should be treated as a verification exercise. The key question should not be only: Should this rule remain on the books? The better question is: What public function does this rule still perform, what evidence supports that function, what burden does it impose, and what risk would emerge if the rule were modified, replaced, or removed? For the energy sector, that distinction matters. The United States is facing rapid changes in electricity demand, AI and data-center load, grid congestion, generation retirements, transmission constraints, industrial reshoring, critical-mineral exposure, cyber risk, and public-private cost allocation. Rules that appeared low-consequence in a slower system may become important when infrastructure is under stress. At the same time, rules that no longer produce measurable reliability, resilience, security, consumer, or market benefit should be revised or removed. PAG recommends that DOE apply an infrastructure-assumption verification standard to zero-based regulatory review. For each rule or regulatory requirement under review, DOE should ask: 1. What assumption does the rule rely on? Does the rule assume a certain technology, market structure, fuel mix, demand profile, risk model, reporting pathway, or institutional capacity? 2. Is that assumption still valid? DOE should evaluate whether the rule reflects current grid conditions, current technology, current national-security risk, current market behavior, and current infrastructure constraints. 3. What public function does the rule serve? The relevant functions may include reliability, safety, resilience, affordability, energy security, environmental protection, consumer protection, market transparency, emergency preparedness, or infrastructure integrity. 4. What evidence shows the rule is working? DOE should distinguish rules that produce measurable public benefit from rules that primarily generate process burden. 5. What burden does the rule impose? DOE should evaluate administrative burden, compliance cost, reporting duplication, permitting delay, investment friction, and burden on small entities. 6. What risk would be created by repeal or revision? A rule should not be eliminated merely because it is old or burdensome if removal would weaken reliability visibility, safety, resilience, security, or consumer protection. 7. Can the same public function be achieved with a simpler rule? Where possible, DOE should replace outdated, duplicative, or unclear requirements with performance-based, technology-neutral, evidence-driven standards. 8. What should trigger future review? Rules should include review triggers where appropriate, such as major load-growth changes, reliability events, grid emergencies, critical-infrastructure incidents, supply-chain disruption, new technology deployment, or material changes in cost burden. PAG recommends that DOE classify rules into four categories: First, retain rules that continue to provide clear reliability, safety, resilience, security, market, or public-benefit value. Second, revise rules that serve a valid purpose but rely on outdated assumptions, unclear definitions, duplicative reporting, or inefficient procedures. Third, replace rules where a more performance-based or evidence-based approach can achieve the same objective with lower burden. Fourth, remove rules that impose cost or delay without measurable practical utility. The broader principle is simple: Regulatory review should verify public value before rules harden into permanent burden — and verify risk before rules are removed. Energy regulation sits inside a rapidly changing infrastructure environment. Zero-based review should help DOE distinguish between unnecessary process and necessary protection. PAG supports DOE’s effort, provided the review is disciplined by evidence, practical utility, burden discipline, reliability impact, infrastructure risk, and national-security relevance. Respectfully submitted, Neil P. Osnato Founder Persistence Analytics Group LLC | United Grid National Security & Infrastructure Risk Analytics Demand Durability | Grid Stress | Load Integrity neil@persistenceanalyticsgroup.com 609-464-9055 https://persistenceanalyticsgroup.com/ SAM.gov Registered Vendor UEI: D3VYU39H6DX9 | CAGE: 19T34 D-U-N-S: 142849930