Insights

E&E News reported that EPA will continue to operate during the shutdown relying on “carryover funds.” Carryover funds generally are unspent and unobligated funds from a previous budget period that are carried forward to cover allowable costs in a future budget period. There is no indication how long EPA’s carryover funds will allow all EPA employees to continue working versus those that are “exempted” or “excepted” personnel, meaning they can continue to work either because they are separately funded (“exempted) or must continue to work because of their position (“excepted), such as emergency responders or criminal agents.

As of midnight on September 29, 2025, the U.S. government has entered a shutdown, triggering furloughs across many agencies that regulate the import and export of wildlife and wildlife products. For businesses and organizations engaged in international wildlife trade, this development raises urgent questions about inspections, permitting, and compliance. These delays impact not only entities engaged in the transfer of live animals but also companies involved in selling products in brick-and-mortar stores as well as e-commerce online stores, covering everything from food, jewelry, skincare and cosmetics to art supplies, home décor and furniture – many of which contain imported or exported wildlife products. 

On September 18, EPA announced that it will prioritize Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) review for “new chemicals related to data centers and artificial intelligence (“AI”) projects,” in an effort to “streamline permitting and regulations to accelerate American data center development.”

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) issued a preliminary list of reporting/covered entities under California’s climate disclosure laws SB 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and SB 261 (the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act) (the “Climate Disclosure Laws”) (both as modified by SB 219).

Responding to the D.C. Circuit’s deadline to inform the court how it wishes to proceed in litigation challenging the agency’s listing of two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stood behind its rule. In a September 17, 2025 filing, EPA told the court that the Trump administration had completed its review and would ultimately keep the Biden-era CERCLA final rule in place. The agency also requested that the court remove—i.e. pause—the abeyance placed on the proceedings, so that the lawsuit could move forward and be adjudicated.

On August 8, 2025, the Attorneys General of 23 Republican-led U.S. states (the “AGs”) sent a letter to Science Based Targets Initiative (“SBTi”), a U.K. non-profit climate organization, expressing concern with the SBTi’s climate initiatives.[1]SBTi had previously received a subpoena from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in connection with his office’s investigation into what he described as a “climate cartel,” which he alleges includes SBTi and CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).[2]

On September 11, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate regulations for four types of polyfluoroalkyls (known collectively as “PFAS”) in drinking water. The motion for partial vacatur marks a significant reversal in the agency’s policy, as the EPA had previously vigorously defended legal challenges to the first-of-their-kind standards in federal court for the past two years. See American Water Works Association, et al. v. EPA, case no. 24-1188 and consolidated cases (D.C. Cir. filed June 7, 2024). Just this month, the case was given the green light to proceed, after being held in abeyance (at the request of both parties) so that the Trump administration could determine how it wished to proceed. The change signals a willingness on the part of the administration to act on previously issued non-legally binding announcements of forthcoming changes to Biden-era rules and may also serve as a harbinger for how the new administration will tackle PFAS under other statutes, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In 2023, California passed two landmark laws—SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act; and SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act—that will require large public and privately-held entities doing business in California to comply with sweeping disclosure requirements regarding their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks. California subsequently passed SB 219, which updated certain deadlines and requirements of the laws (collectively, the “Climate Disclosure Laws”).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a final rule on August 18, 2025, increasing civil penalties for violations of various animal and wildlife protection statutes implemented by the agency that potentially impact, for instance, global energy and chemical industries, e-commerce trade businesses, and construction companies, to name a few.

Following the February announcement of the Omnibus package, the European Commission, Council, and Parliament have made several decisions indicating ways in which EU ESG laws are likely to be streamlined. This alert provides a high-level summary of the most significant proposed changes to existing and draft ESG legislation.

Current political priorities in Congress will continue to push many industries under the microscope of Congressional investigations, including universities, tech companies, entities that receive federal funds, and energy-sector companies. When the chambers of Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same party, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is less intense and instead public and private sector, state, and local entities are more likely to find themselves in the crosshairs. If a chamber of Congress changes hands in the midterm elections, the focus of the oversight may shift to reflect the policy priorities of the moment and include more executive branch oversight, but even the executive branch is often contending with requests for information that may implicate their dealings with third parties; for example, there is a risk that agency oversight triggers requests for privileged material belonging to a government contractor or grantee. The topics and industries of highest interest may play musical chairs, but entities across sectors would do well to incorporate a few best practices that will mitigate their risk should they end up in the hot seat, either directly or through a government partner.

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are voluntary, environmental or public health projects that parties subject to environmental enforcement proceedings can propose as part of an administrative, civil, or criminal settlement. SEPs are unique and used specifically in environmental enforcement cases in part because (1) many environmental law statutes do not require a showing of harm to prove a violation; thus, redressing harm, outside of equitable relief, is not usually statutorily required; and (2) pollution is a public harm that is hard to redress, both individually and collectively.

You want to own electric generation or energy storage facilities that are used to sell power to data centers or other end user parties (e.g., other types of industrial or commercial customers, institutional entities, traditional utilities, or RTO/ISO markets).  Will Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulation apply to you?     

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. In a five-justice majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) does not require review of the environmental impacts of “upstream” or “downstream” related projects, and reiterated: “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.”[1] This decision comes as the federal government works to expedite what over the years have become lengthy NEPA review processes, and not long after the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations.

The new administration took over four months ago and has implemented significant changes throughout the federal government, including policies affecting prior federal environmental justice (EJ) initiatives. These changes will likely result in reduced regulatory burdens and faster permitting but will apply only at the federal level, leaving the existing EJ laws at the state level fully enforceable.  

On May 15, 2025, U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or the “Agency”) issued a memorandum outlining the Agency’s new policy for evaluating financial assistance awards (e.g., grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements) to identify waste, fraud, and abuse. Businesses, universities, non-profit organizations, and other entities that have received DOE financial assistance awards now face increased risk of investigation and potential award termination, withholding of funding, and project modification.

On May 14, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced that it will keep the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (“NPDWR”) for perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), while extending the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. EPA further announced it plans to rescind requirements in those regulations applicable to other PFAS and mixtures of certain PFAS in drinking water. The NPDWR consists of legally enforceable primary standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems and guide EPA’s enforcement of the SDWA. This announcement follows EPA’s April 28, 2025 press release outlining its priorities for PFAS enforcement, which included 21 actions EPA intends to take to address PFAS and “engage with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that ensures the polluter pays and passive receivers are protected.”

On May 13, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to extend the deadline for manufacturers and importers of products containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to report to EPA on their past activities.

The Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars in grants, loans, and other funding to facilitate clean energy and infrastructure deployment, advance Environmental Justice policy objectives, and address climate change concerns. While many companies, non-profits, and other recipients have reaped the benefits of those programs, they may also now be exposed to increased risks from Congressional investigations; enforcement actions; inspector general reviews; terminations for alleged waste, fraud, and abuse; and in extreme instances, potential exposure to criminal liability.

On February 26, the European Commission presented its Clean Industrial Deal (CID). As a follow-up to the European Green Deal, the CID aims to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry while at the same time accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.