Insights

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.

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.”