Insights

On August 26, 2026, President Trump issued EO 14420, prohibiting the acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation of foreign-produced bulk-power system electric equipment that meet certain criteria. The prohibitions are in response to the national emergency declared by President Trump pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and based on foreign actors’ potential exploitation of vulnerabilities in U.S. energy infrastructure to harm U.S. national security, including through digital backdoors built into foreign-manufactured equipment that allow remote access and potential sabotage. According to the Order, this threat to national security has become even more acute given the rapid growth of advanced manufacturing, data centers, artificial intelligence, and defense production, which together have exponentially increased U.S. dependence on reliable electricity.

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), denying the petitions of seven industry groups seeking to overturn that designation.[1] CERCLA, also known as the “Superfund Statute,” allows EPA to require potentially responsible parties to fund cleanup of hazardous substances.

Of particular interest for investors with interests in Canada or the UAE, for counsel advising on treaty coverage, dispute strategy, or treaty design, the Canada-UAE FIPA is essential reading and the clearest evidence yet of where Canada's investment treaty practice stands over 30 years after NAFTA came into force.

The rapid buildout of AI infrastructure has placed data centers at the heart of a new and expanding wave of class action litigation. Over the past several months, plaintiffs’ firms with significant experience in mass tort and environmental class actions have begun recruiting plaintiffs and filing lawsuits against data center operators, alleging that noise generated by their facilities — from cooling systems, diesel generators, and HVAC equipment — constitutes a public and private nuisance and reflects actionable negligence. Companies currently operating or constructing data centers near residential communities should treat this as a material and growing legal risk.

On June 18, 2026, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) added microplastics to the list of Candidate Chemicals maintained under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) regulations.  The listing of microplastics, which becomes effective on October 1, 2026, is the first step in the SCP regulatory process, which could lead to restrictions on products that contain or release microplastics. 

On July 1, 2026, EPA proposed the sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6), which will require public water systems (PWS) to monitor 30 unregulated contaminants — including certain PFAS chemicals — but not microplastics. For now, EPA is using other tools, such as the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), to learn more about microplastics before requiring PWSs to monitor for them.

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, resolving a circuit split over whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state law failure-to-warn claims challenging EPA-approved pesticide labels. In a 7-2 opinion, the Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts state tort claims that would require a manufacturer to add or modify warnings on a pesticide label, at least where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated the relevant risk and approved the label, whether with warnings reflecting the agency’s assessment or without a corresponding warning.

The nation’s power grid and infrastructure are facing increased pressure from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, prompting new questions around environmental regulatory design and compliance. As technology companies race to build and expand new data center factories, they face a web of permitting requirements as well as potential community opposition, and environmental litigation — all against a backdrop of rapid and still-evolving agency guidance.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.

On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a federal complaint seeking to enjoin Minnesota’s state-court climate lawsuit against major energy companies. DOJ contends that Minnesota’s claims—which target global greenhouse gas emissions—intrude on exclusive federal authority. The complaint asserts that Minnesota’s lawsuit violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is preempted based on uniquely federal interests, the prohibition on extraterritorial state regulation, the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), and the Foreign Affairs doctrine.

On April 6, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6), marking a significant step in the agency's effort to identify and evaluate unregulated contaminants in public water systems. The CCL 6 includes 75 chemicals, four chemical groups (disinfection byproducts (DBP), microplastics, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and pharmaceuticals), and nine microbes.

A coalition of regional clean energy trade associations — including RENEW Northeast, Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Southern Renewable Energy Association, and Interwest Energy Alliance — along with the Green Energy Consumers Alliance (GECA), filed suit in December 2025 against the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Army Corps of Engineers. The complaint alleged that five agency actions, issued in response to a series of executive orders and presidential memoranda beginning on January 20, 2025, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by arbitrarily halting or restricting federal permitting for wind and solar energy projects. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of these policies while the litigation proceeds. See Renew Northeast, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, et al., No. 25-cv-13961-DJC,  (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2026) ECF Dkt. 89.

Entities regulated by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) are potentially facing an unprecedented wave of federal enforcement as DOJ, USDA, HHS, and DHS unleash a plan to intensify inspections, increase compliance demands, and coordinate enforcement efforts like never before — making proactive preparation essential for all affected organizations.

In a rare move that could have significant impacts for businesses operating in regulated industries, the Trump administration has indicated plans to invoke the Endangered Species Committee, commonly referred to as the “God Squad.”  See 16 U.S.C. 1536(e); 50 C.F.R. Part 453. On March 16, 2026, the Interior Department published a notice in the Federal Register, stating that the Committee will hold a meeting – which will be livestreamed - on March 31 in Washington, D.C. to consider an ESA exemption “with respect to oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities” in the Gulf.[1]This little-known but powerful federal panel earned its nickname because it holds the authority to exempt certain projects from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), potentially clearing the way for development and other activities in sensitive habitats.

On February 19, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Branch Street Solar Partners, LLC et al., 194 FERC ¶ 61,124 (2026) rejecting the refund reports filed in connection with the late filing of recertifications of qualifying facility (QF) status by certain affiliated companies to reflect a change in upstream ownership. FERC’s rearticulation of QF recertification timing requirements and consequences for late QF recertifications has broad and substantial implications for all QF owners. 

Rising electricity prices are becoming an increasingly potent political issue, with both utilities and data centers facing growing scrutiny from federal and state lawmakers on how to insulate ratepayers from rising costs. While headlines have been dominated by the White House and Governors of states in the PJM Interconnection proposing reforms to the PJM capacity market, and by New Jersey Governor Sherrill’s goal to freeze rate hikes, the issue is also quickly becoming a focal point of congressional oversight.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently issued consultation paper CP26/5, proposing to replace the existing Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) requirements with new rules mandating listed companies to report against the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS). These are based on the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

State regulation of PFAS-containing products will ramp up significantly in 2026. Most notably, companies will have to comply with Minnesota’s sweeping new product-reporting requirements.  As we explain below, Minnesota’s requirements cast a wide net, capturing companies that may not sell products directly into the state. This and other features of the state’s reporting program are likely to present significant compliance challenges for a wide range of businesses.

As microplastics begin making headlines and sparking scientific inquiry into the impacts of these pervasive particles, state legislators, regulators, and law enforcers—as well as private plaintiffs’ counsel—are taking action. In California, a bipartisan coalition of legislators passed AB 823, expanding the scope of an existing state ban on products containing plastic microbeads. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, citing concerns that the ban would inadvertently slow the adoption of non-plastic alternatives.