Insights

In a business environment characterised by tremendous change and impact as a result of the new Trump Administration and the 119th Congress, it is crucial for U.K. businesses to stay informed about developments in the U.S. Crowell is focused on providing clients with timely and actionable insights that can help to inform forward-looking business priorities and strategies.

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.”

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.

With a new President entering office in January 2025 and many key Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expiring (TCJA) on December 31, 2025, both sides of the aisle are teeing up a massive effort to renew, extend, roll back, or make permanent various provisions of former President Trump’s signature tax bill and President Biden’s signature climate bill. Just about every business sector will be impacted by how Congress and the new administration approach TCJA and other tax issues. Here is a sneak peek into the top five issues our tax and policy experts expect to come up in that debate based on the campaign positions of Vice President Harris and former President Trump.

The EU Institutions are currently adding the finishing touches to the new Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (“PPWR”) which is expected to be adopted in Q4 2024 or Q1 2025. While many companies are fully preoccupied with preparing for other EU legislation (e.g. the Deforestation Regulation) – companies will ignore the PPWR at their peril. The PPWR contains a host of ambitious legal targets and requirements – which industry will find it difficult to achieve in practice. And the deadlines to comply – are perhaps even more challenging. Companies will need to start preparing for the EU PPWR now, to avoid serious problems – including supply-chain disruption, penalties and litigation – in the future.

On 18 September 2024, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30.  The judgment considers several significant issues relevant to international arbitration.  Primarily, though, it reaffirms: (i) the English court’s strong support for arbitration, in general; (ii) the steps it is prepared to take to hold parties to their agreement to arbitrate; and (iii) the current position for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, in the absence of an express election by the parties.

On September 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced a settlement with Keurig Dr Pepper Inc (“Keurig”).  The SEC alleged that Keurig made incomplete and inaccurate statements in the Company’s annual reports for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 touting the recyclability of its K-Cup products. Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. 

The Department of Defense (“DoD) recently took important actions to expand and deepen its relationships with companies bringing critical energy production and storage technologies to the DoD marketplace. As one of the largest consumers of energy in the world, DoD has the scale and resources to catalyze new industries, and mission assurance increasingly requires a diverse generation mix and incorporation of advanced technologies.

As the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) Loan Programs Office (“LPO”) continues to finance clean energy manufacturing and deployment in the United States, the recent announcement by the DOE’s Office of Inspector General’s (“DOE OIG”) that it intends to scrutinize LPO’s due diligence process increases the risk to program applicants. According to a recent notice issued on SAM.gov, the DOE OIG intends to issue a sole source contract for legal support “assessing the policies and procedures” for the due diligence of loan applications, and evaluate specific LPO loans and guarantees to assess their compliance with, consistency in application of, and the effectiveness of LPO policies and procedures, as well as related Governmentwide regulations, policies, procedures, and directives, to identify specific points of weakness in due diligence practices, and to recommend improvements to mitigate risks.

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”)[1] in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (No. 22-451) and Relentless v. Dep’t of Commerce (No. 22–1219)[2] (the two cases collectively referred to as “Loper Bright”), bringing an official end to the decades-old and eponymously named “Chevron deference” doctrine. Not content to stop there, the Court returned fresh to work Monday, July 1, to, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 22-451)[3] (“Corner Post”), effectively extend the limitations period to challenge final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

In one of the first rulings applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC for further consideration.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued Order No. 1920 on May 13, 2024 to increase the pace of transmission grid expansion and strengthen regional transmission planning.[1] The landmark order, as well as the concurrence and dissent of the Commissioners voting on the order, is summarized below. At bottom, it represents a fundamental reshaping of the transmission planning landscape, requiring long-term transmission planning, closer coordination between generation interconnection and regional transmission planning, and revisions to the local transmission planning process to close loopholes created by Order No. 1000 in 2011.

On April 19, 2024, EPA signed the highly anticipated final rule designating two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  At the same time, David M. Uhlmann, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the EPA, released an enforcement policy memorandum that provides “direction to all EPA enforcement and compliance staff about how EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion under CERCLA in matters involving PFAS, just as EPA exercises enforcement discretion regarding other hazardous substances.”  This alert summarizes key points from the enforcement policy and flags various uncertainties that lie ahead.