States and Major Environmental and Consumer Organizations Threaten to Sue the Department of Energy Over Alleged Delays in Issuing Energy Efficiency Standards
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.13.20
On Monday, more than a dozen states and major environmental and consumer organizations issued notices of intent (available here and here) to sue the Department of Energy (DOE) for alleged violations of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
As discussed in previous client alerts, DOE administers EPCA by setting mandatory appliance efficiency standards or conservation standards for over 60 covered products. Under the law, DOE is required to reexamine the standards for each product at least once every six years, and must update the standards for certain products by specific deadlines.
Although DOE has recently proposed or finalized updates to conservation standards for several products (e.g., metal halide lamps, commercial packaged boilers, portable air conditioners) and issued requests for information regarding several more (e.g., commercial clothes washers, external power supplies, electric motors), the notices of intent to sue allege that DOE is delinquent in reviewing the standards for sixteen covered products under EPCA, and in setting standards for nine more, a list of which is below. Pursuant to EPCA’s citizen suit provision, the states and environmental and consumer organizations must now wait sixty days before filing suit, during which time DOE can seek to cure the alleged violations.
The notices of intent to sue identified DOE as being delinquent in reviewing or issuing standards for the following products:
Small electric motors; pool heaters; water heaters; clothes dryers; room air conditioners; oil furnaces and weatherized gas furnaces; refrigerators and freezers; fluorescent lamp ballasts; residential clothes washers; evaporatively-cooled commercial air conditioners; water-cooled commercial air conditioners; distribution transformers; microwave ovens; direct heating equipment; dishwashers; electric motors; furnace fans; non-weatherized and mobile home gas furnaces; cooking products; commercial water heaters; metal halide lamp fixtures; walk-in coolers and freezers; commercial refrigeration equipment; dedicated outdoor air systems; computer room air conditioners; and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) air conditioners and heat pumps.
If DOE fails to review and/or issue new standards for the above products, the states and the environmental and consumer organizations are expected to file suit upon expiration of the sixty-day waiting period, which would be on or soon after October 9, 2020. It remains to be seen if DOE will issue some or all of the updated product standards before the deadline.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
