Insights

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years have become lengthy NEPA review processes, and not long after the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations.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.

Following a directive from President Trump,[1] and in the wake of two court decisions concluding the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) had no authority to promulgate them in the first place, CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) regulations are being removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.

On February 4, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, signaling five pillars that will guide EPA’s work in the short term, which are summarized below:

In the first days of his Administration, President Trump has issued a number of Executive Orders that mark a significant shift in United States energy and climate policy, marked by deregulation and a focus on traditional energy sources. President Trump’s second term agenda will have profound implications not only domestically but also on the international stage. Understanding the impact of these policies is crucial for businesses and investors alike. This article will explore the effects of President Trump’s agenda with respect to climate change policy, oil and gas, and solar energy sectors.

As the United States government transitions from the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration, significant changes are already impacting infrastructure policy, with likely consequences to both planned and in-progress infrastructure projects around the country. Disruptions in funding and other policy changes are creating uncertainty for investors and stakeholders involved in infrastructure projects, particularly the potential impacts on projects funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as previewed in our January 18thclient alert, “Implications of Incoming Administration Changes to Infrastructure Initiatives.”

On January 8, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register adjusting upward the maximum monetary civil penalties for violating its regulations. This rule raised the minimum and maximum fines for 2025 by 1.02% from their 2024 levels. New penalty amounts go into effect immediately and apply to violations occurring after January 8, 2025.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the withdrawal of all areas on the Outer Continental Shelf —an expansive area of submerged land under federal control— from eligibility for offshore wind leasing. This Executive Order was one of several energy-related executive orders reportedly intended to increase oil and gas production and curtail the deployment of clean energy resources signed by Trump shortly following his inauguration. The Order is premised on stated concerns for meeting “the country’s growing demand for reliable energy,” maintaining a “robust fishing industry for future generations” and providing “low cost energy to [U.S.] citizens.”

Democratic State Attorneys General took a series of actions to defend Biden Administration Rules on the environment, firearms, and immigration, in the final days before President Trump returned to the White House. While these State AGs argue that the rules at issue protect the public health and safety of their constituents and the nation, the incoming Administration has indicated that it may withdraw its support from some or all of these regulations. Notably, many of the Rules in question face legal challenges from Republican State Attorneys General. A look at the Democratic AGs’ actions is below.

The ongoing changes surrounding the U.S.’s position on infrastructure between the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration is creating policy uncertainty for investors and companies in the infrastructure space. This instability may raise concerns among stakeholders that the U.S. is not an ideal place to invest because of the policy inconsistency and increases the likelihood of disputes arising from existing and potential foreign investment projects.

On November 27, 2024, a group of eleven state attorneys general (the “AGs”) sued three of the world’s largest asset managers (the “Asset Managers”), accusing them of anticompetitive stock acquisitions, deceptive asset management practices, and an antitrust conspiracy to restrict coal output. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief including divestitures, as well as fines under state laws, although the allegations could provide a basis for follow-on private treble damages claims under the antitrust laws.

There is currently a deluge of new EU law being finalized and adopted – particularly on environmental and sustainability issues. At times it may seem overwhelming – with certain new EU laws being overlooked.  However, when serious environmental problems come to light within companies – the first major concern is normally criminal liability. That includes potential criminal liability of the company itself, but also of the CEO, Board Members and other persons leading it. With that in mind – top of a company’s ‘to-do’ list should be ensuring compliance with the new EU Environmental Crime Directive.

Cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, soya, wood, rubber?  Do you sell any of these commodities? Do you sell any products derived, containing or using any of these commodities? Are there any companies in your supply chain which sell or use these commodities, or derivative products?  Do you (or others in your supply chain) sell products in the EU/EEA, or export products from the EU/EEA?  If so, you – and your supply chain – must likely comply with the Deforestation Regulation.[1] And getting ready is no easy feat – even despite the recent actions to postpone some of the application deadlines of concern.