Trump Administration Outlines Plans for a ‘Golden Era’ of American Energy
The Trump Administration is beginning to roll out its policy plans to “dominate” the global energy space. These plans tackle energy transition issues in a dramatically different manner than did the Biden Administration, particularly by leaning into fostering the development of resources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric power that provide reliable “baseload” supply. This comes as no surprise given President Trump’s promise to “drill, baby, drill” at the inauguration.
We previously reported on the Trump Administration’s early plans for energy policy, and in the weeks since those plans are coming into sharper focus. Key policy blueprints include the following:
A memorandum released by US Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright on February 5 classified as a plan for “Unleashing the Golden Era of American Energy Dominance” and framing out DOE’s initial slate of actions.
An executive order issued on February 14 establishing the “National Energy Dominance Council” to advise the president on ways to increase domestic energy production and take full advantage of the nation’s “amazing national assets” including oil, natural gas, biofuels, uranium and critical minerals, geothermal heat, and the “kinetic energy of moving water. The council is tasked with preparing a detailed report on the state of “energy dominance” to be prepared within 100 days.
The council will be made up of at least 17 cabinet members and other federal officials, and the US Secretary of the Interior will serve as the Council Chair. The executive order stresses the importance of energy dominance on national security, and the Energy Dominance Council chair will be given a seat on the National Security Council.
We break down the policy framework, which dovetails with the USEP Environmental Protection Agency’s priorities (summarized here), and accompanying context for the Trump Administration’s energy-related plans below. Highlights include:
Renewing focus on fossil fuels like oil and natural gas in place of wind and solar.
Prioritizing lowering the cost of energy to consumers instead of emissions reductions.
Promoting nuclear technology.
Preparing for increased energy demand.
Streamlining government oversight.
Renewed Focus on Oil and Natural Gas
In a stark contrast from the Biden Administration’s focus on wind and solar, the Golden Era plan focuses heavily on fossil fuels by calling to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and ending the Biden Administration’s pause on natural gas exports to countries without free trade agreements. DOE announced its first natural gas export permit approval on February 14.
The 100-day Energy Dominance report will also include specific recommendations for approving natural gas pipelines in New England, California, Alaska, and other areas “underserved by American natural gas.” Separately, President Trump has promised to revive the Constitution Pipeline, intended to transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York, which has been stalled since 2020.
In terms of advancing renewable energy, the Golden Era plan mentions only the potential for research and development funding for geothermal and hydropower.
Pivoting From Emissions Reduction to Cost Reduction
Citing the need to reduce inflation and compete with the global economy, DOE plans to roll back Biden Administration efforts to combat climate change in favor of policies that reduce costs for industry and consumers.
Touting the ease at which America’s fossil fuel reserves can be deployed for use, DOE seeks to prioritize the development of these resources instead of Biden Administration priorities such as wind and solar. To this end, DOE’s Golden Era plan announces an end to “net-zero” policies, stating such policies result in higher energy costs and reduced energy reliability without meaningfully reducing global emissions. Additionally, DOE announced it will postpone appliance efficiency mandates and will conduct a comprehensive review of efficiency standards using consumer choice and affordability as a “guiding light.” The postponement echoes arguments made by conservatives in challenges to Biden Administration energy efficiency standards. (For more, see here.)
In addition, the Energy Dominance report will include advice on “identifying and ending practices that raise the cost of energy” as well as ways to encourage private sector and state and local government investments in energy production and infrastructure.
Promoting Nuclear Technology
DOE’s Golden Era plan also includes efforts to launch the “long-awaited American nuclear renaissance” with the goal of leading the world in the “commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy.” Without many specifics, the plan announces that DOE will work to fund nuclear research and development and enable the “rapid deployment and export of next-generation nuclear technology.” The plan further acknowledges the need to modernize nuclear weapons systems and pursue nuclear nonproliferation agreements.
The “Energy Dominance” report will also include recommendations on actions federal agencies can take to facilitate bringing small modular nuclear reactors online.
Preparing for Increased Electricity Demands
The Trump Administration desires to make the United States “the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World.” (For more, see here and here.)
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology requires significant electricity. While abandoning its predecessor’s focus on “electrification” to reduce emissions, the Trump Administration seeks to ensure electricity production necessary for new technology. The Golden Era plan calls for research and development investments into “true technological breakthroughs” including high-performance computing, quantum computing, and AI. The plan further calls for improvements and expansion of the electrical grid, including a “renewed focus to growing baseload and dispatchable generation.”
Citing the goal of leading the world in AI, the Energy Dominance report will include recommendations on “rapidly and significantly increasing electricity capacity.”
Limiting Government Oversight
Finally, in keeping with the Trump Administration’s overarching theme of government efficiency, the “Golden Era” plan promises to streamline the “burdensome federal permitting process,” with specific focus on expediting the approval and construction of energy infrastructure. As part of this process, the Trump Administration is expected to roll back enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the announcement of an interim rule called “Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations.” Of late, NEPA-related decisions, including the regulations underlying NEPA regulations, have been under increased scrutiny with cases pending before both the US Supreme Court and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. (See discussion here.)
Listen to this article
January 2025 ESG Policy Update— Australia
Australian Update
Mandatory Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Come Into Effect
The first phase of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (Cth) (Bill) commenced on and from 1 January 2025. The Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to mandate that sustainability reporting be included in annual reports.
The first phase requires Group 1 entities to disclose climate-related risks and emissions across their entire value chain. Group 2 entities will need to comply from 2026, followed by Group 3 entities from 2027.
First Annual Reporting Period Commences on
Reporting Entities Which Meet Two out of Three of the Following Reporting Criteria
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Reporters
Asset Owners
Consolidated Revenue for Fiscal Year
Consolidated Gross Assets at End of Fiscal Year
Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Employees at End of Fiscal Year
1 Jan 2025(Group 1)
AU$500 million or more.
AU$1 billion or more
500 or more.
Above the NGERs publication threshold.
N/A
1 July 2026(Group 2)
AU$200 million or more.
AU$500 million or more.
250 or more.
All NGER reporters.
AU$5 billion or more of the assets under management.
1 July 2027(Group 3)
AU$50 million or more.
AU$25 million or more.
100 or more.
N/A
N/A
Mandatory reporting will initially consist only of climate statements and applicable notes before expanding to include other sustainability topics, including nature and biodiversity when the relevant International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Sustainability Disclosure Standards are issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).
Entities are also not required to report Scope 3 emissions, being those generated from an entity’s supply chain, until the second year of reporting. Further, there is a limited immunity period of three years for Scope 3 emissions in which actions in respect of statements made may only be commenced by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) or where such statements are criminal in nature.
Further information on the mandatory climate-related disclosures can be found here.
New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Comes into Effect
On 1 January 2025, the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) came into effect.
The NVES aims for cleaner and cheaper cars to be sold in Australia and to cut climate pollution produced by new cars by more than 50%. The NVES aims to prevent 20 million tonnes of climate pollution by 2030.
Under the NVES, car suppliers may continue to sell any vehicle type they choose but will be required to sell more fuel-efficient models to offset any less efficient models they sell. Car suppliers will receive credits if they meet or beat their fuel efficiency targets.
However, if a supplier sells more polluting cars than their target, they will have two years to trade credits with a different supplier or generate credits themselves before a penalty becomes payable.
The NVES aims to bring Australia in line with the majority of the world’s vehicle markets, and global manufacturers will need to comply with Australia’s laws. This means that car suppliers will need to provide Australians with cars that use the same advanced fuel-efficient technology provided to other countries.
For Australians who cannot afford an electric vehicle, it is hoped the NVES will encourage car companies to introduce more inexpensive options. There are approximately 150 electric and plug-in hybrids available in the US, but less than 100 on the market in Australia. There are also currently only a handful of battery electric vehicles in Australia that regularly retail for under AU$40,000.
Inaugural Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner Appointed
On 2 December 2024, Mr Chris Evans commenced a five-year term as the inaugural Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner (Commissioner), having been appointed in November 2024.
Mr Chris Evans previously served as CEO of Walk Free’s Global Freedom Network “Walk Free”. He and Walk Free played a significant role in campaigning for the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (Modern Slavery Act).
Prior to his time at Walk Free, Mr Evans was a Senator representing Western Australia, serving for two decades.
The Australian Government has committed AU$8 million over the forward estimates to support the establishment and operations of the Commissioner.
Among other functions, the Commissioner is to promote business compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, address modern slavery concerns in the Australian business community and support victims of modern slavery. We expect the Commissioner will take a pro-active role in implementing the McMillan Report’s recommendations for reform of the Modern Slavery Act supported by the Australian Government including penalties on reporting companies who fail to submit modern slavery statements on time and in full and the Commissioner’s disclosure of locations, sectors and products considered to be high-risk for modern slavery.
For more information on the role of the Commissioner, you can read our June 2024 ESG Policy Update – Australia.
View From Abroad
Trump Administration Provides Early Insight Into Their Position on ESG-Related Regulations
On 20 January 2025, shortly after new US President Donald Trump was inaugurated, the White House published the America First Priorities (Priorities). Several of these priorities are relevant to ESG-related policies and have been incorporated into Executive Orders and Memoranda issued by President Trump.
These Priorities, Executive Orders and Memoranda provide an insight into the new administration’s position on ESG-related regulations and include the following:
Reviewing for rescission numerous regulations that impose burdens on energy production and use, including mining and processing of non-fuel minerals;
Empowering consumer choice in vehicles, showerheads, toilets, washing machines, lightbulbs and dishwashers;
Declaring an “energy emergency” and using all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure;
Prioritising economic efficiency, American prosperity, consumer choice and fiscal restraint in all foreign engagements that concern energy policy;
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord;
Withdrawing from any agreement or commitment under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and revoking any financial commitment made under the Convention;
Revoking and rescinding the US International Climate Finance Plan and policies implemented to advance the US International Climate Finance Plan;
Freezing bureaucrat hiring except in essential areas; and
Ordering those officials tasked with overseeing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts across federal agencies be placed on administrative leave and halting DEI initiatives taking place within the government.
It is expected that the Trump administration will continue to prioritise economic growth over the perceived costs of ESG-related initiatives. Corporate ESG obligations may decrease, potentially creating short-term reporting relief and less shareholder pressure on companies to adopt ESG-focused policies.
Any relaxation of ESG-related regulations in the US may have extra-territorial effects on other jurisdictions as they determine whether to pause, roll-back or expand their reform programs in response. Multinational enterprises may find it difficult to navigate these potentially increasingly divergent national regimes.
UK Accounting Watchdog Recommends Sustainability Reporting Standards
On 18 December 2024, the Financial Reporting Council, as secretariat to the UK Sustainability Disclosure Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), recommended the UK Government adopt International Sustainability Standards Board reporting standards, IFRS S1 (Sustainability-related financial information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related disclosures) (the Standards).
The purpose of these Standards is to provide useful information for primary users of general financial reports. Broadly:
IFRS S1 provides a global framework for sustainability-related financial disclosures and addresses emissions, waste management and environmental risks; and
IFRS S2 focuses on climate risks and opportunities.
Adopting these Standards in tandem ensures that companies account for their full environmental impact. TAC has also recommended minor amendments to the Standards for better suitability to the UK’s regulatory landscape. For example, extending the ‘climate-first’ reporting relief in IFRS S1 will allow entities to delay reporting sustainability-related information, by up to two years. This will allow companies to prioritise climate-related reporting.
This endorsement comes after the TAC was commissioned by the previous government to provide advice on whether the UK Government should endorse the international reporting Standards. Sally Duckworth, chair of TAC, stated that the adoption of these reporting standards is “a crucial step in aligning UK businesses with global reporting practices, promoting transparency and supporting the transition to a sustainable economy”.
With more than 30 jurisdictions representing 57% of global GDP having already adopted the Standards, the introduction of these Standards in the UK will align UK companies with international reporting standards and provide greater transparency and accountability, which is important for achieving sustainability goals and setting strategies going forward.
Sustainable Investing Spotlight for 2025
Whilst Europe has dominated the sustainable investing charge with regulators prioritising disclosure and reporting initiatives, 2025 is set to be a challenging year with the Trump administration expected to reorder priorities in the US that are likely to impact the sustainability landscape going forward. Investment data analytics from Morningstar predicts that there will be six themes that will shape the coming year:
Regulations
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may reverse rules requiring public companies in the US to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks and roll back a number of other sustainability related initiatives. This is at odds with the European Union and a number of other jurisdictions globally who are focusing on rolling out climate and sustainability disclosures.
Funds Landscape
Fund-naming guidelines that have been introduced by the European Securities and Markets Authority will see a large number of sustainable investment funds across the EU rebrand, which is likely to reshape the landscape. Off the back of the de-regulation occurring in the U.S., there is an expectation that the number of sustainable investment funds will shrink. It will be interesting to see how the market responds and what investor appetite for these products across the rest of the world, will be.
Transition Investing
Investors will look to invest in opportunities arising out of the energy transition. Institutional investment is vital to meet targets, with focus predicted to be on renewable energy and battery production.
Sustainable Bonds
It is predicted that sustainability related bonds will outstrip US$1 trillion once again. Institutional investors have been targeting sustainability related bonds to aid their net zero efforts. Global players like the EU are poised to play a critical role in the global energy transition and boost the sustainability bond markets by implementing regulatory frameworks to encourage investment.
Biodiversity Finance
Nature will increasingly be recognised as an asset class, thanks to global initiatives aimed at correcting the flawed pricing signals that have contributed to biodiversity loss. These efforts seek to acknowledge the true value of nature and address the ongoing degradation of biodiversity. There is an appetite for nature-based investment, but regulatory uncertainty and uncharted pathways remain a deterrent.
Artificial Intelligence
This prominent investment theme in 2024 is likely to continue well into this year. However, there are risks associated with this asset class. The rapid adoption and volatile regulations are proving costly, along with the immense amount of energy generation required to run artificial intelligence fuelled data centres.
Canada Releases First Sustainability Disclosure Standards in Alignment with ISSB Global Framework
The Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) has released its first Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDS), which align closely with IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards whilst also addressing considerations specific to Canada.
Broadly, and similar to IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards:
CSDS 1 establishes general requirements for the disclosure of material sustainability-related financial information; and
CSDS 2 focuses on disclosures of material information on critical climate-related risks and opportunities.
The CSSB has also introduced the Criteria for Modification Framework which outlines the criteria under which the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards developed by the ISSB may be modified for Canadian entities.
CSSB Interim Chair, Bruce Marchand has stated that the introduction of these standards “signifies our commitment to advancing sustainability reporting that aligns with international baseline standards – while reflecting the Canadian context. These standards set the stage for high-quality and consistent sustainability disclosures, essential for informed decision-making and public trust”.
Other features of the CSDS include:
Transition relief through extended timelines for adoption;
Its voluntary adoption by entities, unless mandated by governments or regulators in the future; and
Its role in being the first part of a multi-year strategic plan by the CSSB which includes building partnerships with First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples to ensure Indigenous perspectives are integrated into sustainability-related standards.
The authors would like to thank lawyer Harrison Langsford and graduates Daniel Nastasi and Katie Richards for their contributions to this alert.
Nathan Bodlovich, Cathy Ma, Daniel Shlager, and Bernard Sia also contributed to this post.
Los Angeles Wildfire Resources: What to do About Your Mortgage
Among the immediate economic impacts faced by those whose homes were destroyed or damaged by the fires in Los Angeles County will be the need to address their home mortgages. There are many issues that homeowners will need to consider, including whether to continue paying the mortgage; what to expect from your lender; how to coordinate with lenders and insurers in anticipation of payments for immediate support and in the longer term, funds for reconstruction; and what support to expect from various government agencies who provide oversight and economic support under these circumstances. As with the other matters that homeowners are facing, it is best to approach each issue with a basic understanding of the resources available and your rights and remedies. While it is not possible to provide a comprehensive listing of every issue to consider, this alert covers what we consider to be some of the fundamental issues and recommendations for proceeding.
1. Lender Communications and Initial Relief.
Reach out to your lender as soon as practicable to discuss the condition of your property and the status of your loan. Prompt and open communications with your lender will likely be met with offers of immediate relief in the form of a loan forbearance. As has been reported in the news, the major banks have already stated that they will be offering such forbearances to all affected borrowers. Note, while some lenders may approach you with offers of a loan modification, you should consider whether you have sufficient information to enter into any agreement beyond a forbearance agreement at this time. Before you can proceed with a loan modification, you will need to have a complete financial plan in place which takes into account the value of the property, the cost to rebuild or repair, sufficiency of insurance coverage, and availability of funding from the numerous government programs and those which may become available in the coming months.
2. Review Your Loan Agreements and Applicable Insurance Policies.
Before you can fully consider your longer-term approach to your mortgage, you will need to study both the loan documents and your insurance policies because the lender will be named as additional insureds on your policy and will have rights to proceeds otherwise payable to you. Again, while lenders have stated their intent to cooperate, you will want to be sure that your lender and you are on the same page as you and your insurance company regarding the use of funds provided for immediate needs (i.e., housing and expenses) as well as funds made available for design and repair or reconstruction of your home.
3. Insurance, Loan Repayment, and Reconstruction or Repair.
Many borrowers will be looking at the limits on their policies and be concerned that there will be insufficient insurance proceeds to reconstruct (or even repair) their homes. First, it is important to note that borrowers should not assume that they have inadequate coverage based on current information that has been published about building costs and timing of such construction. The adequacy of your limits needs to be addressed on a case-specific basis to determine how much it will cost to rebuild your home and whether your limits, including extended replacement cost coverage, if applicable, are adequate. Note, even if you find that you are underinsured, you will have options beyond the policy to address such shortfalls in the form of government loans and grants (i.e., See sources provided by FEMA and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation). At the same time, you will need to coordinate with your lender to be sure that both the lender and you are in agreement regarding the use of the insurance proceeds. The lender must allow you to use the insurance proceeds to reconstruct your home, as long as you can demonstrate that the value of the completed home will be sufficient to satisfy the debt. In other words, the lender’s interest in the collateral will not be impaired upon completion of the construction project.
Environmental, Health, and Safety Outlook for 2025
In putting together our thoughts on this post, it was hard not to think about the elephant in the room (see what I did there?). The change in administration has already brought significant changes in our nation’s environmental priorities. While time will show us all of the specific ways this will play out in 2025, we are already seeing some trends and can expect others to guide manufacturers as to what the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) landscape might look like over the year.
Rollback of Federal Environmental Regulation and Enforcement
As my partner, Jon Schaefer, reported earlier this month, even before Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, the EPA had temporarily frozen its lawsuits, certain communications, and some final and pending regulations. Several freezes impact per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulations. For example, the EPA instituted a 60-day delay for certain imminent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PFAS reporting requirements “for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” The EPA noted that it may further delay the effective date beyond 60 days. The EPA also put a stop to Clean Water Act rulemaking to develop effluent limitations for PFAS for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category. Whether this trend will carry through to the many other rules, both adopted and contemplated, related to PFAS remains to be seen.
In the saga of the on-again, off-again Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Climate Disclosure Rule, the SEC recently requested that the Eighth Circuit delay oral arguments in its case defending the rule. As we previously reported, this rule would require companies to report various climate-related information to the SEC. When it became final last year, it was immediately challenged, and the rule’s fate was placed in the hands of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. While it was once moving forward to defend the rule, the SEC is now requesting additional time “to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.” This could be the first step in the ultimate demise of the rule, at least under the current administration.
We will continue to track developments at the federal level. Given the administration’s overall priorities, we expect to see further enforcement and regulation rollbacks on several EHS issues.
Uptick in State Action
Many states are poised to pick up the slack in the face of decreasing federal action. With regard to climate disclosure laws, California has already passed several requiring climate-related disclosures for entities doing business in the state, with reporting requirements approaching next year. Other states are joining in, with New York and Colorado considering their own climate disclosure laws. And as many of us have already experienced, decision-making related to PFAS is dominated by state law. As the federal government steps back from regulation and enforcement, we can expect many states take up the mantle on various issues. The patchwork of state laws could create a compliance challenge for manufacturers operating in multiple locations around the country. It will be important for manufacturers to remain up-to-date on proposed and final state actions so they can be prepared for new requirements that could pop up in various jurisdictions.
Citizen Suit Action
In addition to increased state activity, we expect an increase in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws in 2025. Many federal environmental statutes have provisions allowing for citizen enforcement when the federal government fails to do so. These laws also allow citizens to pursue the government for failed enforcement and oversight. Under the first Trump administration, we saw an uptick in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws, and we expect to see the same during Trump 2.0. These lawsuits could hit manufacturers on various topics, including enforcement related to clean water, clean air, and hazardous waste. Citizens may also target the federal government, which could ultimately cause the federal government to take action of its own, even when it was not planning to do so.
We expect 2025 to be a busy year in the EHS world.
Foley Automotive Update 19 February 2025
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
Key Developments
Automakers and suppliers are delaying certain investment decisions and considering a range of scenarios to adjust production and supply chains in response to President Trump’s tariff policies that include a 25% tariff on certain automobile and semiconductor imports that could be announced as soon as April 2, the potential for broader “reciprocal tariffs” on all countries that tax U.S. imports, 25% levies on steel and aluminum imports, and uncertainty over proposed 25% tariffs on all U.S. imports from Mexico and Canada that were paused for a “one month period” as of February 3.
Major automakers are reported to be increasing their lobbying efforts over concerns certain tariff and trade policies of the Trump administration will lead to higher manufacturing costs and job losses in the U.S.
Foley & Lardner partner Greg Husisian provided insights in Manufacturing Dive on the potential ramifications of President Trump’s 25% tariffs on steeland aluminum imports, as well as commentary in CNN here and here regarding the Trump administration’s proposed “reciprocal tariffs” on numerous trading partners. Visit Foley & Lardner’s 100 Days and Beyond: A Presidential Transition Hub for more updates on policy analysis and the business implications of the Trump administration across a range of areas.
Vehicle imports represented 53% of 2024 U.S. new light-vehicle sales, according to analysis from GlobalData featured in CNBC. The top three nations for U.S. vehicle imports last year were Mexico (16.2%), Korea (8.6%) and Japan (8.2%).
Canada accounts for roughly 20% of U.S. steel imports and 50% of aluminum imports. The U.S. exported over $16 billion of steel and aluminum products to Canada in 2024.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on February 14 announced plans to submit certain California emissions waivers for Congressional review. The action could result in a repeal of waivers approved under the Biden administration that supported California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Omnibus NOx rules. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s request to pause three cases so the EPA could reevaluate Biden-era regulations that include the decision to grant California a Clean Air Act waiver allowing the state to implement its own greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles.
OEMs/Suppliers
Ford informed suppliers it will delay the launch of its next-generation F-150 pickup truck, according to a report in Crain’s Detroit.
Ford reported 2024 net income of $5.9 billion on total revenue of $185 billion, representing year-over-year increases of 37% and 5%, respectively. The automaker projected its 2025 operating profit could decline by 17% to 31% YOY due to challenges that include pricing competitiveness, lower sales volumes, and the expectation for up to $5.5 billion in losses for its EV and software operations.
Private equity firm KKR and Taiwanese electronics giant Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn) were reported to be considering investments in Nissan following the automaker’s breakdown of merger discussions with Honda.
GM laid off 79 hourly workers at its CAMI Assembly plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. The plant produces the BrightDrop electric commercial van.
Isuzu will invest $280 million to establish a commercial truck manufacturing plant in South Carolina.
GM intends to close a plant in Shenyang, China, as part of a broader restructuring in the nation in response to declines in market share, according to unnamed sources in Reuters.
Market Trends and Regulatory
The Wall Street Journal provided a breakdown of the U.S. market share and production of certain overseas automakers that could be affected by new import tariffs.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation expressed its support for the nomination of Jonathan Morrison to serve as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Morrison most recently held a position at Apple, and he previously served as NHTSA’s Chief Counsel during the first Trump administration.
A Rhode Island federal judge ruled on February 10 that substantive effects have persisted for the now-rescinded January 27 Office of Management and Budget memorandum (M-25-13) that called for a freeze on certain federal grants, loans and other financial assistance. The judge also “rejected the administration’s argument that some funds — including assistance under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) — have remained properly frozen in an effort to ‘root out fraud,’ writing that his order required all frozen funding to be restored.”
Automakers are among the entities lobbying the Trump administration to pursue a gradual phaseout of certain EV tax credits rather than an abrupt end.
A Massachusetts federal judge ruled against automakers that sought to block implementation of the state’s “right-to-repair” law. In the lawsuit filed in 2020, automakers had cited concerns that included cybersecurity risks and the potential for inconsistencies with certain federal laws.
Automotive News provided an overview of the manufacturing investments that could beat risk if the IRA or large portions of it are repealed.
Auto insurance costs may rise for consumers if vehicle repair costs are impacted by tariffs on auto parts.
A report in Automotive News predicts an increase in automotive plants with the flexibility to produce multiple propulsion systems.
BYD is reported to be pursuing discussions to sell European automakers carbon credits to help mitigate the effects of stricter emissions standards in the European Union. The European Commission could announce an action plan next month in response to automakers’ concerns over the compliance costs associated with 2025 CO2 emissions targets in the bloc.
The Trump administration agreed to pause additional layoffs at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a February 14 court order. However, the future of the lending institutions’ regulator is currently unclear.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
BYD will include advanced driver-assistance systems as a standard feature in many of its future models sold in China at no additional cost to buyers. Capabilities of BYD’s “God’s Eye” system will vary depending on the vehicle classification. The automaker is also developing plans to integrate software from Chinese AI startup DeepSeek.
GM announced a goal for its Super Cruise hands-free driver-assist system to reach $2 billion in annual revenue within five years.
Industry stakeholders at the 5g Automotive Association symposium emphasized the importance for automakers to invest in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) connectivity.
Lyft plans to debut driverless rides in Mobileye-powered robotaxis as soon as next year, beginning in Dallas.
Electric Vehicles and Low Emissions Technology
J.D. Power predicts 2025 U.S. EV market share will hold at 9.1%,to match last year’s sales levels of 1.2 million units.
Toyota plansto begin shipping batteries for North American electrified vehicles from its Battery Manufacturing North Carolina plant in April 2025. This is Toyota’s first in-house battery manufacturing plant outside Japan and it represents nearly a $14 billion investment.
Electric truck maker Nikola filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Automaker-backed EV charging company Ionna plans to continue adding infrastructure at pace without relying on NEVI funding, with a priority on hubs around cities to serve drivers that are not able to install a home charger.
Rivian’s electric van is now available for purchase by any entities with a fleet of commercial vehicles. The vehicles were previously exclusively sold to Amazon.
A group of Republican senators introduced legislation to establish a $1,000 tax on new EV purchases to fund federal road repairs.
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst
Update on U.S. Climate Disclosure Requirements
As of early 2025, the landscape of climate disclosure requirements in the United States is shifting. Unsurprisingly, the Trump Administration has signaled its intent to roll back the federal climate disclosure rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) last year. Meanwhile, implementation of California’s suite of climate disclosure laws is moving forward, and at least two other states are considering copy-cat legislation. As companies operating in the United States continue to prepare for compliance at the state level, they should consider these developments alongside potential changes to international and voluntary reporting standards and should work to implement corporate processes that ensure consistency and accuracy in reporting across all relevant frameworks.
SEC Climate Rule
In March 2024, the SEC adopted rules to standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and public offerings. The rules were promptly challenged by multiple stakeholders, and the cases were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Not long afterwards, on April 4, 2024, the SEC stayed implementation of the regulations pending judicial review of the legal challenges.
On February 11, 2025, Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda issued a statement announcing that he had directed SEC staff to request that the court not schedule the case for oral argument in order to allow time for the Commission to determine next steps in light of certain changes. Specifically, Acting Chair Uyeda cited as changes (1) his views that “[t]he Rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and the economy” and was promulgated without statutory authority; (2) the recent change in the composition of the Commission; and (3) President Trump’s recent memorandum regarding a regulatory freeze.
While next steps on the part of the Eighth Circuit and the SEC are yet to be seen, the SEC will likely seek to roll back the 2024 rule, potentially through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
California Climate Disclosure Laws
Meanwhile, implementation of California’s climate disclosure laws is moving forward. In October 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law three different bills: (1) SB 253, requiring disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions for companies with at least a billion dollars in revenue that are doing business in California; (2) SB 261, requiring climate-related risk disclosures for companies with at least $500 million in revenue that are doing business in California; and (3) AB 1305, requiring annual substantiation of offset sales and purchases, as well as net zero and emission reduction claims, for companies operating and making claims in California. Unlike the SEC rule, all of these laws apply regardless of whether a company is public or privately held.
In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law a set of amendments to SB 253 that, among other things, delayed the rulemaking deadline set for the California Air Resources Board until July 1, 2025. The amendments did not, however, delay any compliance timelines for covered entities. This means that covered entities must continue to plan for the first round of reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in 2026, with reference to FY 2025 data, even though a host of questions remain about the scope and mechanics of required reporting. In recognition of this uncertainty, on December 5, 2025, CARB issued an Enforcement Notice indicating that it would not pursue enforcement against entities working in “good faith” toward compliance, and that, for the first reporting year, it would be sufficient to rely on data already in a reporting entity’s possession as of the date of the notice. Not long after, CARB announced a public comment period to seek input from stakeholders on a range of implementation-related issues, including how CARB should define “doing business in California” for purposes of defining the universe of entities subject to compliance obligations under SB 253 and SB 261.
Implementation of the California laws seems unlikely to be stopped in court. On February 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California substantially narrowed an ongoing judicial challenge to SB 253 and SB 261 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, California Chamber of Commerce, and other industry stakeholders. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims that these laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and constitute extraterritorial regulation in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court has preserved, for now, a claim that these laws compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Pending Legislation in Other States
During the past several legislative sessions, New York has considered climate disclosure bills similar to California’s SB 253 and SB 261. In January 2025, these bills were once again introduced in the New York Senate as S3456 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) and S3697 (Report of Climate-Related Financial Risk). While similar to SB 253, S3456 is more explicit on some points—for example, by specifying that the law’s applicability be determined with reference to consolidated revenue, including revenues received by all of the business’s subsidiaries.
Illinois and Washington also considered similar legislation in 2024 and may seek to introduce it in 2025.
Changes to International and Voluntary Frameworks
Companies that operate in the European Union (“EU”) have been preparing in earnest for compliance with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) for well over a year. Nonetheless, the European Parliament is reportedly considering omnibus legislation that would potentially reduce the scope of CSRD applicability and reporting, as well as make changes to other EU sustainability laws. These changes could be relevant not only to companies with direct reporting obligations under these laws, but also to companies that report under voluntary standards, such as CDP, that have sought to align with the CSRD.
What’s Next?
Companies doing business in the United States should continue to monitor this shifting landscape at the U.S. state and international levels. As changes occur, it will be critical to reevaluate data collection and reporting processes to ensure consistency and compliance with all relevant frameworks.
Parked: The Extension of the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements to Portfolio Managers
On 14 February 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) updated its webpage on consultation paper (CP24/8) on extending the sustainability disclosure requirements (“SDR”) and investment labelling regime to portfolio managers. In the update, the FCA confirmed that it no longer intends to do so and will continue to reflect on the feedback received and provide further information in due course.
The FCA had scheduled publishing a policy statement on this in Q2 2025, but has now stalled this, setting out they are continuing to want to ensure the extension of SDR to portfolio management delivers good outcomes for consumers, is practical for firms and supports growth of the sector.
We reported on the consultation paper here: FCA Sustainability Disclosure Requirements Consultation Paper on the Extension to Portfolio Managers now published – Insights – Proskauer Rose LLP.
Corporate Sustainability Obligations in the EU: France Urges the EU To Postpone the Application of Adopted EU Directives
On 20 January 2025, France published a memorandum urging the EU to modify the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (Directive 2022/2464, “CSRD”), and to postpone the application of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Directive 2024/1760, “CS3D”). France’s statements resonate with the series of Executive Orders aiming in the U.S. at various markets deregulations, although to a lesser degree.
The CSRD and the CS3D
Under EU law, a ‘directive’ (unlike a ‘regulation’) must be implemented by Member States into their own national legislation in order to be applicable. Member States should comply with the objectives of the directive, although they have the choice of the means to attain its objectives. Member States have a deadline to comply with this implementation obligation.
The CSRD
The CSRD entered into force on 5 January 2023 and the implementation deadline expired on 6 July 2024. France implemented it on time, but the European Commission opened infringement procedures before the Court of Justice of the European Union against 17 other Member States in September 2024. To date, the European Commission is still waiting for 8 Member States to implement the directive.
The CSRD requires EU large undertakings (“entreprises” in EU jargon), as well as EU and non-EU listed companies (excluding micro-undertakings) to report sustainability information at individual level.[1] The CSRD also provides for consolidated sustainability statements and corresponding exemptions at individual level. Moreover, non-EU undertakings with a net EU turnover above EUR 150 million are targeted if they have EU subsidiaries covered by the CSRD or branches with net EU turnover above EUR 40 million. In that case, it is up to the EU subsidiary or branch to make available the sustainability report, except if exemptions apply.
The sustainability statement is public and contains non-financial information on the social and environmental risks the company faces, and how its activities impact people and the environment. It is redacted according to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and is supposed to improve the quality, consistency and comparability of sustainability information provided by companies.
The timeframe for applying the CSRD differs depending on the type of undertaking: FY 2024 for large undertakings which are public interest entities with more than 500 employees; FY 2025 for other large undertakings; FY 2026 for listed small and medium-sized undertakings (“SMEs”)[2]; and FY 2028 for non-EU undertakings with net EU turnover above EUR 150 million (through their subsidiary or branch).
For details please see our previous article here.
The CS3D
The CS3D entered into force on 25 July 2024 and the implementation deadline will expire on 26 July 2026. France has not implemented it yet.
The aim of the CS3D is to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour in companies’ operations and across their global value chains. The CS3D establishes a corporate due diligence duty. The core elements of this duty are identifying and addressing potential and actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts in the company’s own operations, their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chain(s), those of their business partners.
The CS3D applies to EU limited liability companies and partnerships with more than 1,000 employees and a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 450 million, as well as ultimate parent companies of a corporate group that meets the thresholds on a consolidated basis, and franchisors/licensors meeting certain conditions and thresholds. It also applies to non-EU undertakings of a legal form comparable to LLCs/partnerships with a net turnover of more than EUR 450 million generated in the EU, as well as ultimate parent companies of a corporate group that meets the threshold on a consolidated basis, and franchisors/licensors meeting certain conditions and thresholds.
The timeframe for applying the CS3D differs depending on the type of undertaking: July 2027 for EU companies with more than 5,000 employees and EUR 1,500 million worldwide turnover, as well as non-EU companies with more than EUR 1,500 million turnover generated in the EU; July 2028 for EU companies with more than 3,000 employees and EUR 900 million worldwide turnover, as well as non-EU companies with more than EUR 900 million turnover generated in the EU; and July 2029 for all other companies in scope.
France’s memorandum
France’s memorandum comes in the context of criticism of both directives. Member States like Italy or Germany, as well as stakeholders, recently alleged that they would hamper the competitiveness of the EU as compared to other regions. Even certain third countries have voiced concerns over the application of the CS3D, particularly if it resulted in fines. They claim that it imposes excessive compliance costs and creates unnecessary challenges for their companies, making them reconsider their involvement in the EU market.
France sees the need for action confirmed by Mario Draghi’s report[3] of 9 September 2024 on the future competitiveness of the EU and his diagnosis of loss of competitiveness vis-à-vis its main international competitors and in particular in the absence of a level playing field.
For the French authorities, the proportionality of the CSRD framework is no longer ensured in light of the very substantial competitive challenges that EU companies are facing. Therefore, they are in favour of the urgent adoption of several modifications including;
the reduction of the number of sustainability indicators and a narrowed focus on climate objectives;
the introduction in the Accounting Directive of the notion of “mid-caps”, i.e. intermediate-sized companies positioned above current SMEs and below large companies, to which SMEs ESRS would apply;
the introduction in the CSRD of a principle of capping reporting in the subcontracting chain of large companies;
the provision in the Accounting Directive for the inclusion of fees for auditing sustainability information in the annex to the company accounts.
As a subsidiary option, France is also open to a two-year postponement of the entry into force of the provisions of the CSRD.
With respect to the CS3D, France submits that the new CS3D obligations entail a number of potential risks identified by companies and likely to affect their competitiveness, including in relation to non-EU companies not subject to these same standards. Therefore, the French authorities are in favour of an indefinite postponement of the entry into force of the CS3D, to allow the incorporation of several adjustments, among which;
the limitation of the personal scope to EU companies with more than 5,000 employees and EUR 1,500 million worldwide turnover, as well as non-EU companies with more than EUR 1,500 million turnover generated in the EU;
the application of due diligence at group level instead of subsidiary level;
the creation of a single EU supervisory authority, which would be explicitly endowed with a support and mediation role;
the deletion of additional requirements for regulated financial companies, in order to treat the latter similarly to companies in other sectors.
France’s proposal goes well beyond the two above Directives and suggests comprehensive changes to other regulatory instruments including in relation to AI, Taxonomy, Environmental Data Reporting, Banking Sector Standards, State Aid Procedures, Agricultural Aid, Securitisation Market, REACH Regulation, Biomass Installations, Waste Classification Harmonisation, Agricultural Sector Simplifications.
Conclusion
France also seems to be adopting a position of reducing, or at least simplifying, regulation (to a lesser extent than the United States), in order to enable its companies to remain competitive. This approach is not limited to the issue of sustainability, but also covers areas such as agriculture and AI, which are crucial for the coming years.
To what extent France will succeed with its initiative is open. Ultimately, the proposal requires a comprehensive regulatory simplification agenda with a broad scope to enhance EU competitiveness and alleviate administrative burdens, particularly for SMEs and mid-sized companies.
While postponement might be easily achieved, substantive changes will require EU institutions to reopen the dialogue which is feared to postpone the implementation of the directives indefinitely. On the other hand, the burdensome rules have been widely criticised and de-regulation is the buzz-word of the moment. It is not unlikely that more countries will jump on the bandwagon which would give France’s initiative further momentum.
Companies are well advised to monitor this development carefully. Until an EU level consensus is reached, national laws in France and across the EU will continue to apply. Independent initiatives by EU Member States to postpone or amend their rules could be in breach of their obligations of the Directive, which will make a national solo-action less likely.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Under the EU Accounting Directive 2013/34, micro-undertakings do not exceed the limits of at least two of the three following criteria: total balance sheet total of EUR 450,000; net turnover of EUR 900,000; or average number of 10 employees during the financial year. Large undertakings exceed at least two of the three following criteria: total balance sheet of EUR 25,000,000; net turnover of EUR 50,000,000; or average number of 250 employees during the financial year.
[2] Under the EU Accounting Directive 2013/34, small undertakings do not exceed the limits of at least two of the three following criteria: total balance sheet total of EUR 5,000,000; net turnover of EUR 10,000,000; or average number of 50 employees during the financial year of; medium-sized undertakings do not exceed the limits of at least two of the three following criteria: total balance sheet total of EUR 25,000,000; net turnover of EUR 50,000,000; or average number of 250 employees during the financial year.
[3] Mr. Draghi was the President of the European Central Bank and a former Italian Prime Minister; he was mandated by the European Commission to draft a report on the future competitiveness of the EU.
January 2025 Bounty Hunter Plaintiff Claims
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”), the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires, among other things, sellers of products to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” if use of the product results in a knowing and intentional exposure to one of more than 900 different chemicals “known to the State of California” to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, which are included on The Proposition 65 List. For additional background information, see the Special Focus article, California’s Proposition 65: A Regulatory Conundrum.
Because Prop. 65 permits enforcement of the law by private individuals (the so-called bounty hunter provision), this section of the statute has long been a source of significant claims and litigation in California. It has also gone a long way in helping to create a plaintiff’s bar that specializes in such lawsuits. This is because the statute allows recovery of attorney’s fees, in addition to the imposition of civil penalties as high as $2,500 per day per violation. Thus, the costs of litigation and settlement can be substantial.
The purpose of Keller and Heckman’s latest publication, Prop 65 Pulse, is to provide our readers with an idea of the ongoing trends in bounty hunter activity.
In January of 2025, product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers were the targets of 337 new Notices of Violation (“Notices”) and amended Notices, alleging a violation of Prop. 65 for failure to provide a warning for their products. This was based on the alleged presence of the following chemicals in these products. Noteworthy trends and categories from Notices sent in January 2025 are excerpted and discussed below. A complete list of Notices sent in January 2025 can be found on the California Attorney General’s website, located here: 60-Day Notice Search.
Food and Drug
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Dietary Supplements: Notices include protein powder, prenatal vitamins, and spirulina
22 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds
Assorted Prepared Food and Snacks: Notices include chips, soup mix, plant-based patties, and protein bars
21 Notices
Cadmium and Lead and Lead Compounds
Seafood: Notices include sardines, mussels, cod liver, tuna, and clams
19 Notices
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds and Lead and Lead Compounds
Cannabinoid Products: Notices include tinctures, gummies, CBD oil, and seltzer
14 Notices
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Fruits and Vegetables: Notices include olives, chopped spinach, dried tomatoes, and artichoke hearts
13 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds and Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Spices and Sauces: Notices include chat masala, dried ginger, and chili
6 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds
Noodles, Pasta, and Rice: Notices include vegetable lasagna, cheese tortellini, and angel hair pasta
4 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds and Cadmium
Mint Products: Notices include mint candy and mint caffeine pouches
2 Notices
Pulegone
Seafood: Notices include whole clams and sardines
2 Notices
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and its salts, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Dietary Supplements
1 Notice
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Fruits and Vegetables: Notices include dried mandarin oranges
1 Notice
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Cosmetics and Personal Care
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Personal Care Products: Notices include shaving cream, moisturizers, shampoo, sunscreen, and hair dye
52 Notices
Diethanolamine
Personal Care Products: Notices include shaving cream, cleansing foam, and hair mousse
5 Notices
Nitrous oxide
Consumer Products
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Plastic Pouches, Bags, and Accessories: Notices include pet carriers, water bottle sleeves, lunch bags, and eyewear cases
60 Notices
Bisphenol A (BPA), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP)
Tools: Notices include screws, solder slugs, lead anchors, and brass hose nozzles
45 Notices
Bisphenol S (BPS), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP), and Lead and Lead Compounds
Glassware and Ceramics: Notices include mugs, vases, ramekins, and bowls
38 Notices
Lead
Housewares: Notices include tablecloths, corkscrews, and vinyl seat cushions
11 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP), and Lead
Sports Gear: Notices include roller skates, batting gloves, and dumbbells
8 Notices
Chromium (hexavalent compounds), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and Lead
Moth Balls
6 Notices
Naphthalene and p-Dichlorobenzene
Clothing, Shoes, and Jewelry: Notices include hats, gloves, rain footwear, and sandals
5 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
Cookware: Notices include single-use oval burrito bowls and paper straws
2 Notices
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
There are numerous defenses to Prop. 65 claims, and proactive measures that industry can take prior to receiving a Prop. 65 Notice in the first place. Keller and Heckman attorneys have extensive experience in defense of Prop. 65 claims and in all aspects of Prop. 65 compliance and risk management. We provide tailored Proposition 65 services to a wide range of industries, including food and beverage, personal care, consumer products, chemical products, e-vapor and tobacco products, household products, plastics and rubber, and retail distribution.
Latest Updates on Maine’s Net Energy Billing Program
Recent decisions by the Maine Legislature and the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) may affect participants in Maine’s Net Energy Billing (NEB) Program. Here are a few updates to keep you up to speed:
Maine Legislature Considering Bills to Repeal Net Energy Billing
The Maine Legislature is considering four bills that aim to eliminate or drastically limit Maine’s NEB program. The fate of the bills is uncertain as they are likely to face significant opposition. The bills are:
LD 32: An Act to Repeal the Laws Regarding Net Energy Billing
LD 257: An Act to Eliminate the Practice of Net Energy Billing
LD 359: An Act to Prohibit Net Energy Billing by Certain Customers
LD 450: An Act to Lower Electricity Costs by Repealing the Laws Governing Net Energy Billing
Bills LD 32, LD 257, and LD 450 are identical in substance, and would repeal the laws that established the NEB program and prohibit the Maine PUC from requiring transmission and distribution utilities to allow customers to participate in NEB. In addition, they would eliminate references to NEB in other laws, including repealing the provisions of law providing for property tax exemptions for solar equipment used for NEB.
Bill LD 359 would prohibit customers from having a shared financial interest in distributed generation facilities. It would limit the NEB program to distributed generation (DG) resources that are located on the same side of the customer’s meter and that are used primarily to serve the load of that customer. It would also require all NEB credits associated with the output of the DG facility to be allocated to that customer. The bill would further revise the applicability of the tariff rates and amend other statutes to reflect the changes in the NEB program.
All four bills have been scheduled for a public hearing before the Energy, Utilities, and Technology (EUT) Committee on February 25, 2025.
NEB Projects in kWh Program Certified as a Maine Class I Resources Must Retain or Obtain RECs to Meet RPS
Last week, the PUC rejected a Request for Rehearing in Docket No. 2024-00251 and upheld its prior decision that a DG resource owner certified as a Maine Class I or Class IA resource, and participating in Maine’s Net Energy Billing Kilowatt Hour (kWh) Credit program, must retain generation information systems (GIS) certificates or otherwise obtain GIS certificates necessary to satisfy Maine’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for that portion of the load that is served by the facility or the load associated with NEB kWh credits (REC Holdback Requirement).[1]
The PUC rejected arguments that the REC Holdback Requirement is an unnoticed and therefore impermissible change to the NEB program rules and beyond the authority granted to it by the Legislature.
Rather, the PUC found that imposing the REC Holdback Requirement falls within its authority to certify Maine Class I Renewable Resources under Maine’s RPS and its authority to determine how much of the output of the facility is eligible to receive such certification.
The PUC also also found that the REC Holdback Requirement is consistent with a similar long-standing requirement that behind-the-meter generation facilities comply with Maine’s RPS for that portion of the load that is supplied by the behind-the-meter generator.
DG resources participating in Maine’s NEB Tariff Program are not subject to this REC Holdback Requirement.
[1] Nexamp, Inc. and Holden Solar LLC Request for Approval of Certification for RPS Eligibility Pertaining to Versant Power, Docket No. 2024-00251, Order Denying Request for Rehearing (February 14, 2025) (REC Holdback Order).
Texas Senate Bill 6 and Impacts on Large Load Development in ERCOT
On 12 February 2025, Texas Senate Bill 6 (SB6), authored by Sen. Phil King and Sen. Charles Schwertner, was filed. The low bill number on this indicates it is a priority bill and will likely have momentum. If passed, this bill will directly impact entities currently in or contemplating a co-location arrangement in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. A co-location arrangement is where generation and load are located at the same point on the grid.
If passed, SB6 would require the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to, “implement minimum rates that require all retail customers in that region [ERCOT] served behind-the-meter to pay retail transmission charges based on a percentage of the customer’s non-coincident peak demand from the utility system as identified in the customer’s service agreement.” Many large load entities have pursued co-location arrangements to avoid transmission costs so if passed this will result in a shift. The bill would require the PUC to develop standards for interconnecting large loads in a way to “support business development” in Texas “while minimizing the potential for stranded infrastructure costs.”
Additionally, SB6, if passed, would require the PUC to establish standards for interconnecting large load customers at transmission voltage in ERCOT. SB6 would have these interconnection standards apply to facilities with a demand of 75 MW or more but allows the PUC to determine a lower threshold if necessary. As part of these interconnection standards, the large load customer must disclose to the utility whether the customer is pursuing a duplicate request for electric service in another location (both within and outside of Texas), the approval of that duplicative request would cause the customer to change or withdraw their interconnection request. This likely would result in the utility having a better sense of which large load will move forward in the interconnection queue versus those that are duplicative. The large load customer would also be required to disclose information about its on-site backup generating facilities. The bill would allow ERCOT, after reasonable notice, to deploy the customer’s on-site backup generating facility. As part of the PUC standards for interconnection, the large load customer would have to provide proof of financial commitment which may include security on a dollar per MW basis, as set by the PUC.
SB6 also requires a co-located power generation company, municipally owned utility, or electric cooperative, to submit a notice to the PUC and ERCOT before implementing a new net metering arrangement between a registered generation resource and an unaffiliated retail customer if the retail customer’s demand exceeds 10% of the unit’s nameplate capacity and the facility owner has not proposed to construct an equal amount of replacement capacity in the same general area. Additionally, SB6 would require a new net metering arrangement be consented to by the electric cooperative, electric utility, or municipally owned utility certified to provide retail electric service at the location. The PUCT would have 180 days to approve, deny, or impose reasonable conditions on the proposed net metering arrangement, as necessary to maintain system reliability. Such conditions may include:
That behind-the-meter load ramp down during certain events;
That generation reenter energy markets in the ERCOT power region during certain events; and
That the generation resource will be held liable for stranded or underutilized transmission assets resulting from the behind-the-meter operation.
If the PUC does not act within the 180-day period, the arrangement would be deemed approved.
SB6 would also require large load that is interconnected after 31 December 2025 to install equipment that allows the load to be remotely disconnected during firm load shed. Finally, SB6 would require the PUC to study whether 4 Coincident Peak transmission cost allocation is appropriate.
Recent Federal Developments for February 14, 2025
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI
EPA Releases Final Risk Evaluation For DINP, Finding Unreasonable Risk Of Injury To Human Health When Workers Are Exposed Under Four Conditions Of Use (COU): On January 14, 2025, EPA released the final risk evaluation for diisononyl phthalate (DINP) conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA states that it has determined that DINP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health because workers could be exposed to high concentrations of DINP in mist when spraying adhesive, sealant, paint, and coating products that contain DINP. According to EPA, DINP can cause developmental toxicity and harm the liver and can cause cancer at higher rates of exposure. EPA notes that DINP can also harm the developing male reproductive system, known as “phthalate syndrome,” and that it is including DINP in its cumulative risk analysis for six phthalates that demonstrate effects consistent with phthalate syndrome. EPA released this draft risk analysis on January 6, 2025. For more information and our commentary, please read the full memorandum.
EPA Proposes Risk Management Rule To Protect Workers From Inhalation Exposure To PV29: On January 14, 2025, EPA issued a proposed rule to address the unreasonable risk of injury to human health presented by Color Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) under its COUs as documented in EPA’s January 2021 risk evaluation and September 2022 revised risk determination. 90 Fed. Reg. 3107. The proposed rule states that TSCA requires that EPA address by rule any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment identified in a TSCA risk evaluation and apply requirements to the extent necessary so the chemical no longer presents unreasonable risk. To address the identified unreasonable risk, EPA proposes requirements to protect workers during manufacturing and processing, certain industrial and commercial uses of PV29, and disposal, while also allowing for a reasonable transition period prior to enforcement of said requirements. Comments are due February 28, 2025. For more information, please read our January 27, 2025, memorandum.
EPA Releases Draft Scope Document For Vinyl Chloride TSCA Risk Evaluation: On January 16, 2025, EPA announced the availability of and requested public comment on the draft scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted under TSCA for vinyl chloride. 90 Fed. Reg. 4738. EPA notes that under TSCA, the scope documents must include the COUs, hazards, exposures, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) that EPA expects to consider in conducting its risk evaluation. EPA states that the purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the COUs, including unreasonable risk to PESS identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, and without consideration of costs or non-risk factors. Comments are due March 3, 2025. More information is available in our January 28, 2025, memorandum.
EPA Releases Compliance Guidance For Workplace Chemical Protection Requirements In TSCA Risk Management Rules: On January 16, 2025, EPA released a compliance guide to assist the regulated community in complying with Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP) requirements for chemicals regulated under Section 6 of TSCA. EPA states that a WCPP “is a chemical protection program designed to address unreasonable risk posed by chemical exposure to persons in occupational settings.” The compliance guide provides an overview of typical WCPP requirements that the regulated community may be subject to as part of a TSCA Section 6(a) rulemaking. As reported in our previous memoranda, in 2024, EPA issued final risk management rules with WCPP requirements for methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride.
According to EPA, the compliance guide is intended for owners and operators of businesses that manufacture (including import) or process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of a chemical regulated under TSCA Section 6 that is subject to the WCPP in EPA rules. EPA notes that the guide will also be of interest to people who may be exposed to these regulated chemicals in the workplace. The guide broadly addresses the requirements of a typical WCPP, including:
EPA TSCA occupational exposure limits (Existing Chemical Exposure Limits (ECEL) or EPA Short-Term Exposure Limits (EPA STEL)) designated under TSCA;
ECEL action levels;
Occupational exposure monitoring;
Regulated areas;
Direct dermal contact controls (DDCC);
Respirators;
Personal protective equipment (PPE);
Exposure control plans;
Recordkeeping; and
Downstream notifications.
EPA states that while the compliance guide “provides useful information to consider when implementing a WCPP, the regulated community should also consult the WCPP provisions within the applicable risk management rule.” Individual compliance guides for rules may also provide additional chemical-specific guidance. EPA has issued guides for methylene chloride, TCE, and for the use of perchloroethylene in dry cleaning (also available in Korean and Spanish) and energized electrical cleaning.
EPA Releases New MyPest Tracking System: On January 17, 2025, EPA released its new MyPest tracking system to provide transparency and visibility into the real-time status of pesticide submissions. MyPest is a web-based system that tracks a registrant’s pesticide applications and products after submission via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). MyPest allows users to view and communicate with the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) regarding their pesticide products and pending applications. Pursuant to the requirements in the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5), MyPest seeks to provide accurate, up-to-date information about pesticide applications that are with EPA’s OPP for review. The MyPest application is available at https://oppt.my.site.com/mypestapp/s/. More information on MyPest is available in our January 27, 2025, blog item.
EPA Proposes To Clarify Supplier Notification Requirements For TRI-Listed PFAS: EPA proposed on January 17, 2025, to clarify the timeframe for when companies must first notify a customer that one of its mixtures or trade name products contains a per- or polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) listed on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 90 Fed. Reg. 5795. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) adds certain PFAS automatically to the TRI beginning January 1 of the year following specific triggering events. According to EPA’s January 16, 2025, press release, EPA is proposing the rule in response to questions from industry regarding the effective date of supplier notifications for PFAS added to the TRI pursuant to the NDAA. Stakeholders questioned whether the supplier notification requirements for such PFAS begin on January 1, when the PFAS are added to the statutory TRI chemical list, or upon EPA completing a rulemaking to include the added PFAS in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA states that the proposed rule would clarify that the supplier notification requirement for these PFAS starts immediately when they are added to the TRI (January 1) by explicitly defining PFAS added to the TRI by the NDAA as TRI chemicals. EPA notes that as TRI chemicals, they are immediately covered by the TRI regulation’s supplier notification provision, as well as all other TRI reporting requirements. Supplier notifications must begin with the first shipment of the calendar year in which the chemical addition to the TRI is effective. Comments are due February 18, 2025.
EPA Updates TSCA Inventory: On January 17, 2025, EPA announced the release of the latest TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Inventory lists all existing chemical substances manufactured, processed, or imported in the United States under TSCA that do not otherwise qualify for an exemption or exclusion. EPA states that “[t]his biannual update to the public TSCA Inventory is part of EPA’s regular posting of non-confidential TSCA Inventory data.” EPA plans the next regular update of the TSCA Inventory for summer 2025. According to EPA, the TSCA Inventory currently contains 86,847 chemicals, of which 42,495 are active (currently known to be in use) in U.S. commerce. Other updates to the TSCA Inventory include commercial activity data and regulatory flags (e.g., significant new use rules (SNUR)).
Biden EPA Filed Notice Of Appeal Of Ruling That Typical Levels Of Drinking Water Fluoridation Present An Unreasonable Risk To Health: As reported in our September 30, 2024, blog item, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in September 2024 that the plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that the levels of fluoride typical in drinking water in the United States pose an unreasonable risk of injury to the health of the public. Food & Water Watch v. EPA (No. 3:17-cv-02162-EMC). On January 17, 2025, the Biden EPA filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Food & Water Watch v. EPA (No. 25-384). Now that President Trump’s nominee for EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, has been confirmed, it remains to be seen how the Trump EPA will proceed. A mediation conference is scheduled for February 26, 2025.
GAO Recommends EPA’s New Chemicals Program Develop A Systematic Process To Manage And Assess Performance Better: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released a report entitled “New Chemicals Program: EPA Needs a Systematic Process to Better Manage and Assess Performance” on January 22, 2025. GAO states that it was asked to review EPA’s implementation of its TSCA New Chemicals Program. The report summarizes the perspectives of selected manufacturers on EPA’s review process and evaluates the extent to which EPA follows key practices for managing and assessing the program. GAO identified a random, nongeneralizable sample of premanufacture notices (PMN) submitted to EPA from October 2021 to April 2024 and interviewed 19 manufacturers that submitted these notices. GAO also compared EPA’s management and assessment activities to key practices it developed based on federal laws, federal guidance, and prior GAO work.
EPA Delays Effective Date Of TCE Risk Management Rule: On January 28, 2025, EPA issued a final rule delaying the effective date of four rules, including the December 17, 2024, final risk management rule for TCE issued under TSCA Section 6(a), until March 21, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 8254. EPA states that it is delaying the effective dates of the rules in response to President Trump’s January 20, 2025, memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules published in the Federal Register that had not yet taken effect for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. According to EPA, 13 petitions for review of the final TCE rule were filed in various federal appellate courts. On January 13, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a petitioner’s motion to stay temporarily the TCE rule’s effective date. The petitions were then consolidated by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit issued a January 16, 2025, order leaving the temporary stay of the effective date in place pending briefing on whether the temporary stay of the effective date should remain in effect. EPA notes that because of the court decisions, the TCE rule never went into effect and is therefore also covered by the terms of the Regulatory Freeze Pending Review memorandum. As reported in our January 24, 2025, blog item, Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) introduced a resolution (H.J. Res. 27) expressing congressional disapproval of EPA’s final TCE rule. The joint resolution is an attempt to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the rule. More information on the final TCE rule is available in our January 13, 2025, memorandum.
EPA Extends Comment Period On Draft TSCA Risk Evaluation For 1,3-Butadiene: EPA announced on January 31, 2025, that it is extending the public comment period on the draft risk evaluation for 1,3-butadiene under TSCA. 90 Fed. Reg. 8798. Comments that were due February 3, 2025, are now due March 5, 2025. EPA states in its announcement that to give the peer reviewers on the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) time to review any additional comments received, it is in the process of rescheduling the February 4, 2025, virtual preparatory meeting and the February 25-28, 2025, peer review meeting for the draft risk evaluation. EPA will announce the new dates for these meetings once they have been selected.
EPA Postpones Addition Of Nine PFAS To TRI For Reporting Year 2025: On February 5, 2025, EPA delayed until March 21, 2025, the effective date of a January 2025 rule adding nine PFAS to the list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). 90 Fed. Reg. 9010. As reported in our January 13, 2025, blog item, the January rule updates the regulations to identify nine PFAS that must be reported pursuant to the NDAA. The PFAS added to the TRI are:
Ammonium perfluorodecanoate (PFDA NH4) (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®) 3108-42-7);
Sodium perfluorodecanoate (PFDA-Na) (CAS RN 3830-45-3);
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (CAS RN 377-73-1);
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate acid (CAS RN 27619-97-2);
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate anion (CAS RN 425670-75-3);
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt (CAS RN 59587-38-1);
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt (CAS RN 59587-39-2);
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt (CAS RN 27619-94-9); and
Acetic acid, [(γ-ω-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters (CAS RN 3030471-22-5).
In the February 5, 2025, notice, EPA states that it is delaying the effective date of the rule in response to President Trump’s January 20, 2025, memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules published in the Federal Register that had not yet taken effect for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.
Community And Environmental Groups File TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking The Phase Out Of Hydrogen Fluoride In Domestic Oil Refining: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced on February 11, 2025, that community and environmental groups submitted a petition under TSCA Section 21 to EPA to prohibit the use of hydrogen fluoride in domestic oil refining “to eliminate the extreme and unreasonable risks this use presents to public health and the environment.” Brought by NRDC, Clean Air Council (CAC), and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), the petition states that EPA must issue a TSCA Section 6(a) rule prohibiting the use of hydrogen fluoride in domestic oil refining to eliminate unreasonable risks to public health and the environment. According to the petition, “TSCA requires EPA to issue such a rule because this petition identifies (1) a ‘chemical substance’ ([hydrogen fluoride]) that presents, (2) under one or more ‘conditions of use’ (the use of HF for alkylation at U.S. refineries, and the rail and truck transportation needed to supply HF to those refineries), (3) an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.” The petition notes that hydrogen fluoride can take different forms and that anhydrous hydrogen fluoride tends to form hydrofluoric acid when it mixes with water. As reported in our November 13, 2019, blog item, in 2019, EPA denied a similar TSCA Section 21 petition to prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries. TSCA requires EPA to grant or deny the petition within 90 days from the day the petition is filed. If EPA grants the petition, EPA must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, EPA must publish the reasons for denial in the Federal Register.
Deadline For Filing Annual Pesticide Production Reports Is March 1, 2025: The March 1, 2025, deadline for all establishments, foreign and domestic, that produce pesticides, devices, or active ingredients to file their annual production for the 2024 reporting year is fast approaching. Pursuant to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. § 136e(c)(1)), “Any producer operating an establishment registered under [Section 7] shall inform the Administrator within 30 days after it is registered of the types and amounts of pesticides and, if applicable, active ingredients used in producing pesticides” and this information “shall be kept current and submitted to the Administrator annually as required.” More information is available in our February 3, 2025, blog item.
RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA
EPA Amends National VOC Emission Standards For Aerosol Coatings: On January 17, 2025, EPA amended the National Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings. 90 Fed. Reg. 5697. EPA states that the regulation employs a relative reactivity-based approach to control aerosol coating products’ contribution to ozone formation by encouraging the use of less reactive VOC ingredients in formulations. In the final rule, EPA updates the coating category product-weighted reactivity (PWR) limits, adding new compounds and reactivity factors, updating existing reactivity factors, revising the rule’s default reactivity factor, amending thresholds for VOC regulated by the rule, amending reporting requirements, updating test methods to reflect more recent versions, adding a new compliance date, and making clarifying edits. The effective date of the final rule is January 17, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 24, 2008.
EPA Proposes To Promulgate New Methods And Update Tables Of Approved Methods For The CWA: EPA proposed on January 21, 2025, to promulgate new methods and update the tables of approved methods for the Clean Water Act (CWA). 90 Fed. Reg. 6967. EPA proposes to add new EPA methods for PFAS and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, and add methods previously published by voluntary consensus bodies that industries and municipalities would use for reporting under EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. EPA also proposes to withdraw the seven Aroclor (PCB mixtures) parameters. In addition, EPA proposes to simplify the sampling requirements for two VOCs, and make a series of minor corrections to existing tables of approved methods. The proposed rule does not mandate when a parameter must be monitored or establish a discharge limit. Comments are due February 20, 2025.
EPA Proposes New Area Source Category To Address Chemical Manufacturing Process Units Using Ethylene Oxide: EPA proposed on January 22, 2025, to establish a new area source category to address chemical manufacturing process units (CMPU) using ethylene oxide (EtO). 90 Fed. Reg. 7942. EPA proposes to list EtO in table 1 to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS NESHAP) and to add EtO-specific requirements to the CMAS NESHAP. EPA also proposes to add a fenceline monitoring program for EtO. In addition, EPA proposes new requirements for pressure vessels and pressure relief devices (PRD). EPA states that this proposal also presents the results of its technology review of the CMAS NESHAP as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). As part of this technology review, EPA proposes to add new leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements to the CMAS NESHAP for equipment leaks in organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) service and heat exchange systems. EPA also proposes performance testing once every five years and to add provisions for electronic reporting. According to the notice, EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the CMAS NESHAP, excluding the proposed EtO emission standards, would reduce HAP emissions from emission sources by approximately 158 tons per year (tpy). Additionally, the proposed EtO emission standards are expected to reduce EtO emissions by approximately 4.6 tpy. Comments are due March 24, 2025. EPA notes that under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives comments on or before February 21, 2025.
FDA
FDA Revokes Authorization For FD&C Red No. 3: On January 16, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the revocation of authorization to use FD&C Red No. 3 based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 90 Fed. Reg. 4628. According to FDA’s January 15, 2025, announcement, FDA’s action is in response to a Color Additive Petition filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, et al., in 2022, which required FDA to review whether the Delaney Clause applied to this food additive. Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027, or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products. According to the Federal Register notice, either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the order must be submitted by February 18, 2025.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
OECD Tour de Table Includes Information On U.S. And International Developments On The Safety Of Manufactured Nanomaterials: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has published the Developments in Delegations on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials and Advanced Materials between July 2023 and June 2024 — Tour de Table (Tour de Table). The Tour de Table lists U.S. and international developments on the human health and environmental safety of nanomaterials. More information is available in our February 7 and February 14, 2025, blog items.
PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION
TSCA In The Spotlight: TSCA Is Focus Of First Energy & Commerce Hearing Of 119th Congress; GAO Issues Report On New Chemicals Program: In a development no one could have predicted several weeks ago, the first hearing of the 119th Congress in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) focused on TSCA and amendments to TSCA that were enacted more than eight years ago. The E&C Subcommittee on Environment (Subcommittee) hearing on January 22, 2025, “A Decade Later: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” featured four witnesses and robust and enthusiastic attendance by the Subcommittee members. (Attendance exceeded the Subcommittee roster because Representative Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) waived onto the Subcommittee to participate in the hearing, where she made news by announcing her intent to introduce a CRA resolution.)
Minutes before the E&C hearing, GAO released the report “New Chemicals Program: EPA Needs a Systematic Process to Better Manage and Assess Performance.” The report echoes a 2023 report by the EPA Office of Inspector General, “The EPA Lacks Complete Guidance for the New Chemicals Program to Ensure Consistency and Transparency in Decisions” (23-P-0026). GAO found that EPA’s New Chemicals Division (NCD) “does not follow most key practices for managing and assessing the results of the New Chemicals Program.” More information is available in our January 24, 2025, blog item and in our item in the TSCA section above.
Senate Confirms Zeldin As EPA Administrator; Nomination Hearing Highlights: The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) on January 23, 2025, advanced the nomination of Lee Zeldin to the full Senate for a vote to confirm him as the next Administrator of EPA. The 11-8 vote to advance the nomination was largely along party lines, with Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) as the only Democrat to vote in favor of advancing Zeldin’s nomination. On January 29, 2025, the Senate confirmed Zeldin as EPA Administrator by a vote of 56-42. More information on the nomination hearing is available in our January 23, 2025, blog item.
EPA Administrator Zeldin Announces Five Pillar Initiative To Guide EPA; What Does It Mean For OCSPP?: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin on February 4, 2025, announced the “Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative” (PGAC Initiative). It consists of five pillars and is intended to serve as a roadmap to guide EPA’s actions under Administrator Zeldin.
The five pillars are:
Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American;
Restore American Energy Dominance;
Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership;
Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World; and
Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs.
Administrator Zeldin explained Pillar 3 by stating, “Any business that wants to invest in America should be able to do so without having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them from doing business in our country in the first place.” [Emphasis added.] We agree and would urge Administrator Zeldin to consider the years-long new chemical approval process under TSCA. For more information, please read our February 7, 2025, blog.
“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” — How Effective Will It Be In Practice?: President Trump, on January 31, 2025, issued Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” This has been referred to as President Trump’s “ten-to-one deregulation initiative” that he spoke about when he was campaigning. If this initiative seems familiar, it may be because you remember Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued on February 3, 2017, by President Trump in his first term. That Executive Order called for a two-to-one repeal of regulations. It remains to be seen how many significant regulations will be targeted for repeal and eventually be repealed by the Trump Administration. It will be interesting to watch how businesses in highly regulated industries, including the chemical manufacturing industry, could benefit or be challenged by these potential regulatory actions. More information is available in our February 12, 2025, blog.
What Can Happen When Federal Career Employees Are Told “You’re Fired!”: Among the less-noticed, less-reported implications of “firing” federal employees for whatever reason (or no reason) is the process under current law and regulations that applies to reducing or eliminating programs and positions within the U.S. government. Known as a reduction in force (RIF), these procedures are arcane, complicated, and could have many unintended impacts even if imposed to attain targeted reductions in specific parts or programs of the federal workforce. The Executive Order issued on February 11, 2025, designed to implement “workforce optimization” (Implementing The President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative), has stated that to reduce the workforce, RIF procedures will be followed.
The RIF procedures are found in the Workforce Reshaping Operations Handbook, 119 pages long, not including an Appendix of 107 pages. This manual from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) outlines how and what happens to a federal employee who has their position eliminated due to budget cuts or management decisions to stop a program activity. More information on the RIF issue is available in our February 13, 2025, blog.
LEGISLATIVE
CRA Resolutions Would Overturn Recent EPA Rules: On January 22, 2025, Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) introduced H.J. Res. 27, a resolution expressing congressional disapproval of EPA’s rule on TCE. This joint resolution is an attempt to use the CRA to overturn EPA’s recent TCE rule issued under TSCA. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a similar resolution (S.J. Res. 19) on February 13, 2025. More information on H.J. Res. 27 is available in our January 24, 2025, blog item, and more information on EPA’s final TCE rule is available in our January 13, 2025, memorandum. On February 12, 2025, Representative Andrew S. Clyde (R-GA) introduced a resolution (H.J. Res. 46) to overturn EPA’s recent decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)) rule. More information on EPA’s final rule is available in our November 13, 2024, memorandum.
House Bill Would Repeal Superfund Tax: On January 22, 2025, Representatives Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), Carol Miller (R-WV), Darin LaHood (R-IL), and Mike Carey (R-OH) introduced the Chemical Tax Repeal Act (H.R. 640). According to Van Duyne’s January 23, 2025, press release, the bill would repeal the Biden-era Superfund Tax “targeting chemical manufacturers with $15 billion in taxes on materials essential in the production of household goods.”
MISCELLANEOUS
President Trump Issues Memorandum Implementing Regulatory Freeze Pending Review: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” that directs agencies to take the following steps:
Do not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register, until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2025, reviews and approves the rule;
Immediately withdraw any rules that have been sent to the Office of the Federal Register but not published in the Federal Register so that they can be reviewed and approved; and
Consistent with applicable law, consider postponing for 60 days from the date of this memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.
USPS Issues New Mailing Standards For Hazardous Materials Outer Packaging And Nonregulated Toxic Materials: On January 27, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) amended Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail, by adding new Section 131 to require specific outer packaging when mailing most hazardous materials (HAZMAT) or dangerous goods (DG), to remove quantity restrictions for nonregulated toxic materials, and to remove the telephone number requirement from the lithium battery mark. The amendment was effective January 27, 2025, and applicable beginning January 19, 2025.
MPCA Recommends Exempting Until 2032 Intentionally Added PFAS In Electronic Or Other Internal Components Within The 11 Product Categories Prohibiting PFAS In 2025: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has posted a January 2025 report to the legislature regarding recommendations for products containing lead, cadmium, and PFAS. During the previous legislative session, the legislature directed MPCA to support a report by January 31, 2025, with legislative recommendations related to the following chemicals and products:
The use of intentionally added PFAS in electronic or other internal components of upholstered furniture in the 2025 prohibition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.943;
The use of lead and cadmium in internal electronic components of keys fobs in the prohibition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 325E.3892;
The use of lead in pens or mechanical pencils included in the prohibition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 325E.3892; and
The use of intentionally added PFAS in firefighting foam used in fire suppression systems installed in airport hangers in the prohibitions under Minnesota Statutes, Section 325F.072.
The MPCA report recommends that the legislature grant an exemption until 2032 for the use of intentionally added PFAS in electronic or other internal components in the 11 product categories that prohibit intentionally added PFAS in 2025. MPCA notes that internal components pose less threat of direct human exposure and that products within the 11 categories often use similar electronic or other internal components as products outside these categories. MPCA states that there are currently limited available alternatives to PFAS for many electronic or other internal component applications and an exemption will allow manufacturers time to find, develop, test, and implement PFAS-free safer alternatives. According to MPCA, an exemption “will give manufacturers of products within the 11 categories the same amount of time provided to manufacturers of products outside these categories (until 2032) to find and implement PFAS-free electronic or other internal components.”