Category: Legislative / Regulatory

Climate Change Environmental Groups Challenge President’s Executive Orders to Expand Energy Development

Margaret Anne Hill, Frank L. Tamulonis III, Stephen C. Zumbrun, and Melissa A. Scacchitti ●

We previously reported that President Trump issued a series of executive actions to fulfill his pledge to advance the United States’ domestic energy economy. These executive actions, such as President Trump’s Executive Orders Unleashing American Energy, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, and Reinvigorating…[the] Coal Industry…., now face legal challenges from environmental groups, led by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit law firm that exclusively represents youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments.[1] Presently, Our Children’s Trust seeks to enjoin these orders from taking effect because of their potential impact on climate change in the youths’ future. This post will provide a brief overview of the litigation and its pending timeline.

Continue reading “Climate Change Environmental Groups Challenge President’s Executive Orders to Expand Energy Development”

Supreme Court Scales Back the NEPA Roadblock to Infrastructure Projects

Margaret Anne Hill and Stephen C. Zumbrun ●

Overview

On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision clarifying the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) for major infrastructure projects. The Court recognized and reined in what infrastructure practitioners have long understood: NEPA strayed far beyond its “procedural” and “informational” roots to become an obstruction to infrastructure projects across the country.

As brief background, a project developer filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) for a proposed 88-mile railroad line in Utah. The STB, pursuant to its NEPA requirements, issued a 3,600-page environmental impact statement (“EIS”) analyzing the environmental effects of the project and ultimately approved the railroad line. Groups challenged the STB’s approval, and the D.C. Circuit vacated the STB’s decision, ordering the STB to analyze the potential “upstream” impacts of the proposed railroad, which included possible increased oil and gas drilling activities in Utah, and potential “downstream” impacts of the railroad, such as increased oil refining in Texas.

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit Court’s prior decision, finding that the D.C. Circuit: (1) did not afford substantial deference to the STB required in NEPA cases, and (2) incorrectly ordered the STB to review the environmental effects of projects separate in time and place from the actual 88-mile railroad under consideration.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Scales Back the NEPA Roadblock to Infrastructure Projects”

PFAS Bans Go into Effect; Manufacturers Attempt to Push Back on Regulations

Michael C. Lupton, Frank A. Dante, and Kevin R. Doherty ●


Many states have enacted or plan to enact new regulations regarding the manufacturing of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals,” because they do not easily break down in the environment and human body. For example, on January 1, 2025, both New York[1] and California[2] banned the sale of any new, not previously used, apparel and certain other products containing added PFAS, while Minnesota[3] banned broad categories of products containing PFAS. More specifically, the Minnesota statute, titled Amara’s Law, prohibits the sale or distribution of the following products if the product contains intentionally added PFAS: (1) carpets or rugs; (2) cleaning products; (3) cookware; (4) cosmetics; (5) dental floss; (6) fabric treatments; (7) juvenile products; (8) menstruation products; (9) textile furnishings; (10) ski wax; and (11) upholstered furniture. The law makes no exceptions for products in these categories, provides no extensions, even if no PFAS alternatives are available, and allows expansion to include additional products if the products contain intentionally added PFAS that are likely to harm Minnesota’s environment and natural resources. Violations of the statute can result in fines, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Other states have similar bans set to take effect over the next several years.[4]

Continue reading “PFAS Bans Go into Effect; Manufacturers Attempt to Push Back on Regulations”

Lead Contamination in Water: Flint Water Crisis Update

Deborah Greenspan and Fredric M. Brooks ●

The existence of lead pipes in municipal water systems and service lines connecting residential and commercial properties to water mains throughout the United States continues to generate litigation and regulatory action. The U.S. government reported in 2023 that more than 9.2 million American households connect to water through lead pipes and lead service lines.[1] The water crisis in Flint, Michigan, that arose a decade ago and gained national prominence involved water allegedly contaminated both by a change in water source and the presence of old lead service lines. That case, involving over 25,000 individual lawsuits as well as class actions, is approaching an important milestone as a partial settlement nears conclusion.

Background

The Flint water crisis began in April 2014 when the City of Flint switched its source of municipal water to the Flint River. For decades previously, Flint had received water from Lake Huron that was pre-treated by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.[2] Following the switch, residents soon reported that “there was something wrong with the way the water looked, tasted, and smelled, and that it was causing rashes.”[3] Tests showed the presence of bacterial contamination. In response, the City treated the water with additional chlorine, which was alleged to have exacerbated the corrosion in the old water lines and allegedly the “corrosion contaminated the water with hazardous levels of lead.”[4] Subsequently, it was alleged that lead monitoring showed results exceeding the Lead and Copper Rule’s action levels for lead, and that a published study showed a spike in the percentage of children in Flint with elevated blood lead levels.[5]

Continue reading “Lead Contamination in Water: Flint Water Crisis Update”

SCOTUS Declines to Review California’s Clean Air Act Preemption Waiver—Current Implications and Expected Response from the Incoming Administration

Sedalia E. Jones-Kennelly ●

Update and Background

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, et al,[1] recently declined to review whether the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) exceeded its authority by granting a preemption waiver for California’s greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero emission-vehicle mandate.[2]

Under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), “emission standard” refers to the legal limit on the amount of a specific air pollutant that can be released from a source, like a vehicle or factory.[3] CAA Sections 209(b) and 209(e) permit the State of California to request a waiver or authorization from federal preemption of state-level regulatory programs for certain vehicle emissions.[4] The EPA must grant the CAA waiver before California’s rules may be enforced.[5]

Petitioners—a group of states led by Ohio and various fuel industry organizations led by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers—asked the Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court’s April 2024 decision siding with the EPA. The Circuit Court had found that some petitioners lacked standing to pursue these claims, while others failed on the merits, and upheld the Agency’s authority to grant California this waiver.

Continue reading “SCOTUS Declines to Review California’s Clean Air Act Preemption Waiver—Current Implications and Expected Response from the Incoming Administration”

The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Does This Mean for Environmental Regulation and Enforcement?

Margaret Anne Hill, Frank L. Tamulonis III, and Holli B. Packer ●

The Supreme Court of the United States’ recent ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[1]dealt a significant blow to the power of federal agencies by ending the 40-year-old precedent commonly known as “Chevron deference.” Loper has now removed the judicial mandate that courts apply “Chevron deference” and defer to agencies on the interpretation of ambiguous language in laws pertaining to their authority. While it is unclear what impact this ruling will have in environmental enforcement cases as well as environmental regulations, federal judges will now have the power to decide what a law means for themselves, expanding the federal bench’s role in enforcement actions and policymaking.

The Chevron Deference Doctrine

The “Chevron deference” doctrine refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,[2] which required judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes that those agencies administer. If Congress did not directly address a debated issue, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

The Chevron doctrine involves a two-step test.[3] In the first step, courts determine if Congress has spoken to the “precise question at issue.”[4] If the statute is ambiguous, courts move to step two.[5] However, “if the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”[6] In the second step, courts defer to the agency as long as their interpretation of the statute is reasonable.[7] Reasonableness is not a high bar. Typically, if a court finds the statute to be ambiguous, the agency’s interpretation will receive deferential preference. At the time of the holding, the Chevron doctrine marked a jurisprudential shift in the interpretive power of the courts, which have historically determined “what the law is,”[8] to agencies in the executive branch.[9]

Continue reading “The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Does This Mean for Environmental Regulation and Enforcement?”

EPA Issues Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

Margaret Anne Hill and Camila Thorpe ●

On April 10, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (“NPDWR”) for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” are widely used in industry and consumer products. According to the EPA, these chemicals have been linked to serious adverse health effects, including cancer and other serious illnesses. The final rule establishes national standards for specific PFAS, both individually and as mixtures, often found in drinking water. [i]

The Final Rule

The final rule sets individual enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) limits for five PFAS.[ii] MCLs are the highest levels of a contaminant that are allowed in drinking water. For mixtures containing two or more of four PFAS,[iii] the rule sets a Hazard Index Level. Finally, the rule also sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (“MCLG”) for each individual PFAS and mixtures, which is a non-enforceable health goal set at a level below which there is no known or expected risk to health.

Continue reading “EPA Issues Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation”

EPA’s Focus on Ethylene Oxide


Margaret Anne Hill, Holli B. Packer, and Robert P. Scott ●


The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule on March 14 that will require significantly reduced emissions from commercial facilities that sterilize medical devices and other equipment using ethylene oxide gas (“EtO Rule”). The EtO Rule amends the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”), 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart O, and is projected to reduce EtO emissions by over 90 percent nationwide for commercial sterilizers. The impetus for the Rule is a complaint filed by Earthjustice on December 14, 2022, in which the non-governmental organization (“NGO”) requested both injunctive and declaratory relief based upon its claim that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had violated Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act for the past 16 years by failing to review and revise air toxics standards for commercial sterilizers.

Emissions Controls and Reporting

The EtO Rule imposes strengthened standards for EtO emissions from the proposed rule following the receipt of public comments. It requires continuous emissions monitoring and quarterly reporting for most commercial sterilizers to ensure that emissions are controlled. Notably, the EtO Rule establishes revised standards for existing sources such as sterilization chamber vents and aeration room vents, as well as for previously unregulated emissions that escape via building leaks and chamber exhaust vents.

Continue reading “EPA’s Focus on Ethylene Oxide”

New SEC Climate-Related Disclosure Rule

Margaret Anne Hill and Holli B. Packer ●

On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to the disclosure rules under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the final rule is a scaled-back version of the proposal published on March 21, 2022, the new rule will require many publicly traded companies to disclose both their direct and indirect emissions, also known as “Scope 1” and “Scope 2” emissions, provided the emissions are material. Companies must also disclose to investors their climate-related risks, including information about financial harm caused by severe weather events and other natural events. The new rule will be phased in beginning with the filing of annual reports for the year ending December 31, 2025.

Of significance to the business community is the SEC’s decision to exclude the requirement to report Scope 3 emissions which would have required businesses to disclose all indirect greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions not otherwise included in a registrant’s Scope 2 emissions that occur in the upstream and downstream activities of the registrant’s value chain. In deciding to eliminate the requirement to report Scope 3 emissions, the SEC observed that “Scope 3 emissions typically result from the activities of third parties in a registrant’s value chain and, thus, collecting the appropriate data and calculating these emissions would potentially be more difficult than for Scopes 1 and 2 emissions.”

Continue reading “New SEC Climate-Related Disclosure Rule”

EPA Issues Supplemental Notice of Proposed Ruling to Implement the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, Finally!

Jeanne M. Grasso and Dana S. Merkel

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“SNPR”) on October 18, 2023, modifying its initial proposed rule from three years ago on performance standards for vessel incidental discharges. 2023-22879.pdf (govinfo.gov) The SNPR addressed only three limited areas—ballast water, hulls and associated niche areas, and graywater—and did not make any sweeping changes to the prior proposal of October 26, 2020. 2020-22385.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Background

In December 2018, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law, which amended the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and was intended to replace the EPA’s 2013 Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) to bring uniformity, consistency, and certainty to the regulation of incidental discharges from U.S. and foreign-flag vessels. VIDA required EPA to finalize uniform performance standards for each type of incidental discharge by December 2020, a deadline that is nearly three years past, and requires the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) to implement EPA’s final standards within two years thereafter.

In October 2020, EPA published a proposed rule titled Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance to implement VIDA, but the proposal languished with the change from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration. EPA’s delay in finalizing its performance standards prompted the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth to file a lawsuit in February 2023 to force EPA to finalize its performance standards. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Regan, et al., No. 3:23-cv-535 (N.D. Cal. 2023). The premise of the environmental groups’ complaint was that EPA’s inaction harmed aquatic ecosystems, with the principal allegations focused on ballast water discharges. The parties thereafter negotiated a Consent Decree that requires EPA to finalize its performance standards by September 23, 2024. To keep EPA accountable, EPA is also required to provide updates to the court every three months on the status of the rulemaking.

To read the full client alert, please visit our website.