Insights

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.

After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.

On 27 November 2025, the European Commission adopted the EU Bioeconomy Strategy 2025 (the Strategy), confirming the bioeconomy as a central pillar of Europe’s industrial, sustainability, and competitiveness agenda. The bioeconomy covers activities that deliver sustainable solutions based on biological resources, including biomass, residues, byproducts, and biogenic carbon, across sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, biomanufacturing, food, health, energy, materials, and construction.

On December 8, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in State of New York v. Trump held unlawful and vacated the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Wind Order” implementing President Trump’s January 20, 2025, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf From Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (Wind Memo, discussed further in a prior alert). This lawsuit, brought by a coalition of states with Alliance for Clean Energy New York intervening on their behalf, challenges Interior’s implementation, through the Wind Order, of the Wind Memo’s direction to pause processing permits and other approvals necessary to onshore and offshore wind energy development. Notably, the lawsuit does not challenge the other element of the Wind Memo, which withdrew unleased offshore areas from future leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). (Note, even though the Wind Order indicates its effect is temporary, the Wind Memo instructs relevant agencies not to advance wind development projects until a “comprehensive assessment” is completed, and the district court’s order confirms that the affected agencies had no plans to restart permitting activities until that assessment was complete.)

As we have reported previously, California has enacted a pair of climate-related reporting laws that apply to large entities doing business in California (SB 253 and SB 261, as modified by SB 219). This alert provides an update on only the most recent events; please see previous alerts for a broader overview of the laws’ requirements.

Microplastics pollution has emerged as a significant issue as the public learns more about the presence of microplastics in the environment and how they may enter the human body.

On November 10, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed regulations that, if adopted, would substantially alter the reporting obligations of companies that manufacture or import products containing per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The proposed regulations would significantly reduce reporting burdens by exempting numerous products that currently trigger reporting requirements under EPA’s PFAS reporting regulations.  The proposed regulations would also delay the current deadline for reporting.

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?