401(k) Plan Fiduciaries Breached ERISA’s Duty of Loyalty By Allowing ESG Interests To Influence Management Of The Plan
Last week, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, issued the first-of-its-kind ruling on the merits pertaining to environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”) investing in ERISA-covered retirement plans. In his 70-page Opinion, Judge O’Connor concluded that the plan fiduciaries of American Airlines’ (the “Plan Sponsor’s”) 401(k) plans breached their duty of loyalty, but not their duty of prudence, by allowing their corporate ESG interests, as well as the plan investment manager’s ESG interests, to influence management of the plans. The case is Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-552 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2025).
There have been numerous media reports on the Opinion which, as one may expect, have reached a wide array of views about its implications. On the one hand, some have viewed the Opinion as being limited to the specific facts of the case. On the other hand, some have viewed the Opinion as having far reaching consequences because (i) its undertone suggests it is yet another attack on the controversial practice of ESG investing, and (ii) it seeks to upend the common practice of plan fiduciaries delegating authority for proxy voting to investment managers.
Plan sponsors and fiduciaries will want to monitor developments in this action, including how Judge O’Connor addresses the issue of damages and what is likely to become a hotly contested appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In addition, a watchful eye should be kept on another case in this District recently remanded by the Fifth Circuit, where another judge is being asked to consider a legal challenge to ERISA’s ESG investing-related regulations.
Background
Bryan Spence, a participant in one of the Plan Sponsor’s two 401(k) plans, sued the plans’ fiduciaries under ERISA, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by mismanaging certain funds in the plans’ investment menus that were managed by firms that pursued non-financial and non-pecuniary ESG policy goals through proxy voting and shareholder activism. Spence contended that such mismanagement harmed the financial interests of the plans’ participants and beneficiaries by pursuing ESG policy goals rather than exclusively financial returns.
The Court’s Opinion
After considering the evidence presented at trial, the court concluded that the plans’ fiduciaries did not breach their fiduciary duty of prudence, but that they did breach their duty of loyalty.
The court concluded that Spence did not prove that the plans’ fiduciaries acted imprudently because their process was consistent with, and in some ways better than, prevailing industry standards. While the court criticized the plans’ fiduciaries for failing to probe the investment manager’s ESG strategy, it concluded that the plans’ fiduciaries maintained a “robust process” for monitoring, selecting, and retaining investment managers, which included the following:
The plans’ fiduciaries held quarterly meetings, which included reporting from internal and external experts responsible for evaluating the plans’ investment managers;
The plans’ fiduciaries hired a well-qualified, independent investment advisor through a competitive bidding process;
The plans’ fiduciaries relied on in-house investment professionals to supplement the third-party advisor’s analysis, “another layer of review that few large-plan fiduciaries replicate”; and
The plans’ fiduciaries met industry standards regarding delegation and oversight of the plans’ investment manager’s proxy voting guidelines and practices.
Notably, the court lamented that “the ‘incestuous’ nature of the retirement industry” means that fiduciaries could escape liability for imprudence by following the prevailing practices of fiduciaries who set the industry standard, even where, in its view, those practices have shortcomings. The court concluded, however, that an act of Congress would be required “to avoid future unconscionable results like those here.”
The court next concluded that the plans’ fiduciaries violated their duty of loyalty “by doing nothing” to ensure that the plans’ investment manager acted in the best financial interests of the plans. In the court’s view, the following facts, taken together, proved that the plans’ fiduciaries failed to act with an “eye single” toward the plans and their participants and beneficiaries:
The investment manager was one of the Plan Sponsor’s largest shareholders and held more than $400 million of the Plan Sponsor’s debt;
A member of the plans’ fiduciary committee was responsible for the Plan Sponsor’s relationship with the investment manager, and the record included emails among fiduciaries referencing the importance to the Plan Sponsor of its relationship with the investment manager;
As a large consumer of fossil fuels, the Plan Sponsor had a corporate reason to be concerned about the investment manager’s ESG focus, which impermissibly clouded the fiduciaries’ judgment; and
The plans’ fiduciaries allowed the Plan Sponsor’s corporate commitment to ESG goals to influence their oversight and management of the plans; in other words, they failed to maintain the necessary divide between their corporate interests and the investment manager’s use of plan assets in the pursuit of ESG policy goals with little fiduciary oversight.
The court found that the evidentiary combination of the (i) Plan Sponsor’s corporate commitment to ESG, (ii) endorsement of ESG policy goals by the plans’ fiduciaries, (iii) influence of, and conflicts of interests related to, the plans’ investment manager that had emphasized ESG, plus the (iv) lack of separation between the defendants’ corporate and fiduciary roles, together established a convincing picture that the defendants had breached their duty of loyalty under ERISA. Whether that disloyalty was in service of the investment manager’s objectives or the Plan Sponsor’s own corporate goals, or both, did not matter. According to the court, the defendants did not act solely in the interests of the plans’ participants and beneficiaries and thus breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to the plans.
The court ordered the parties to submit cross-supplemental briefing within three weeks on the question of whether the plans suffered any losses and other outstanding issues.
Proskauer’s Perspective
Only time will tell whether the Opinion is limited to its facts or, as some believe, will have broad consequences for the retirement plan industry. Regardless, the court’s decision is notable for several reasons.
To begin with, the premise of the court’s analysis was that the investment manager’s ESG focus was non-pecuniary. Consistent with the Department of Labor’s most recent ESG-related guidance (described here), the court acknowledged that ESG factors could be relevant to a pecuniary risk-and-return analysis where there is a “sole focus on [the] ESG factor’s economic relevance.” For example,the court explained that an investment manager would not be permitted to decide to divest from a company because the company lacks diversity in its leadership, but could consider the lack of leadership diversity if the investment manager believes, based on sound analysis, that it materially risks financial harm to shareholders.
The court drew consequential conclusions based on what it characterized as significant holdings by the investment manager of the Plan Sponsor’s equity and debt. The case illustrates the importance of maintaining clear separation between company considerations and plan fiduciaries’ deliberations. Because many large investment managers have significant holdings in major companies, the court’s analysis opens the door for increased scrutiny of whether an investment manager’s holdings might cloud fiduciaries’ judgment. In fact, it could be argued that the very same conduct the court found was consistent with industry norms and established that the plan fiduciaries acted prudently also established that the plan fiduciaries acted disloyally.
Key Considerations for the Construction Industry in 2025 Under President-Elect Trump
As President-elect Trump prepares to take office on January 20, the construction industry must anticipate shifts in trade policy, particularly concerning tariffs. These changes are expected to have significant implications for various sectors, including energy and clean technology.
The industry’s growing reliance on energy-efficient and clean technology components is driven by sustainability goals and regulatory requirements. For example, the US Department of Energy (DOE) guidelines on “Zero Emissions Building” provide a framework for sustainable practices, offering benchmarks for energy efficiency, zero on-site emissions, and clean energy use. Similarly, New York City’s Local Law 97 (LL97) sets ambitious emissions reduction targets for buildings, focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy.
However, potential tariffs on imported clean technology materials could lead to increased costs, hindering compliance with regulations that rely on the imports of energy-efficient materials, and posing challenges to the adoption of sustainable building practices.
As these developments unfold, the construction sector must remain vigilant in monitoring policy changes that could affect the availability and cost of clean technology components in 2025.
Key Points to Watch in 2025
1. Evolving Tariff Policies:
The topic of tariffs under Trump’s second Administration has been a source of concern as President-elect Trump has already threatened to impose universal tariffs in addition to other country-specific tariffs.
At this juncture, we can anticipate an increase in tariff measures, but the specific measures are still unknown in part due to the uncertainty surrounding the rate of potential new tariffs, the countries they may affect, and the mechanisms that will be used to impose them, which will impact the timing any tariffs will take effect.
Because the Trump Administration’s trade policies have particularly focused on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China, such targets could significantly impact the import of construction materials, such as steel, aluminum, softwood lumber, concrete, glass, and binding materials.
For example, tariffs could benefit domestic manufacturers by increasing demand for locally produced materials, such as mass timber, but could create vulnerabilities for the construction sector that relies on imports raw materials used for energy efficiency and sustainable buildings that are sourced from Canada, Mexico, or China.
2. Material Cost Fluctuations:
Be prepared for possible increases in material costs due to tariff adjustments. This could lead to higher project expenses and necessitate budget recalibrations.
Contractors may face challenges in predicting material costs and securing project financing due to economic uncertainty and potential price volatility.
3. Supply Chain Adjustments:
Anticipate disruptions in supply chains as suppliers adapt to new trade regulations. This may result in delays and increased lead times for material availability.
Evaluate current supply chain dependencies and explore alternative sourcing options to mitigate risks.
How Can We Help?
As the new administration takes office, the construction industry must remain vigilant and proactive in addressing potential challenges posed by evolving tariff measures. Companies may need to adjust their project plans to account for potential cost increases and supply chain disruptions. Strategies such as seeking alternative suppliers, exploring domestic options, and reevaluating project budgets and timelines will be crucial in navigating these challenges.
Strategic planning and collaboration with trade experts and legal advisors will be crucial in navigating these changes. Here are some strategic ideas to consider:
Diversify Suppliers: Consider expanding your supplier base to reduce reliance on any single source, particularly those affected by tariffs.
Explore Alternative Materials: Investigate the use of alternative materials that may offer cost advantages or are less impacted by tariffs.
Contractual Safeguards: Review and update contracts to address “escalation,” “force majeure,” or other potential political risks, trade restrictions, and cost fluctuations.
Engage in Advocacy: Participate in industry advocacy efforts to influence policy decisions and promote favorable outcomes for the construction sector.
Monitor Trade Policy Developments: Monitor announcements from the new administration regarding free trade agreements (FTAs) and tariff adjustments that could affect material costs. These could include benefits from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and exclusions from tariffs, such as the Section 301 tariffs on products from China.
Industry members seeking detailed analysis and guidance are encouraged to consult with trade experts and legal advisors specializing in construction and trade policy.
Trump’s Second Term: Implications for Tariffs and Enforcement in the Solar Industry
As President-elect Trump prepares to take office for a second term, his presidency will undoubtedly reshape US international trade policy, impacting US and foreign manufacturing. We can expect that his administration will implement new and increased tariffs. Whether those tariffs come in the form of universal tariffs, tariffs targeted to a few countries, industries or products, or tariffs targeted to certain companies will likely be known once Trump assumes office. The solar industry, particularly solar products originating from China, is expected to be a focus point of potential future tariff measures.
In addition to potential tariff increases, the solar industry is likely to continue to be a high priority sector for forced labor enforcement under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), particularly due to the significant use of polysilicon, a key raw material in solar panels, which is often sourced from Xinjiang, a region in China where forced labor concerns is prevalent.
How Tariffs Could Impact the Solar Industry
As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, the specific tariff actions he may pursue remain uncertain. Historically, tariff increases have followed extensive investigations by US government agencies under statutory authorities like Section 301 and Section 232. However, it is plausible that Trump could leverage alternative powers, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to swiftly enhance protections for domestic solar manufacturers. This could involve the rapid imposition of targeted tariffs on imports of solar panels and components.
These targeted tariffs could take various forms. For instance, they might focus solely on imports from China or extend to other regions with growing photovoltaic (PV) panel production, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand. As developments unfold, we will continue to monitor and provide updates on potential impacts to the solar industry.
Solar Imports Will Continue to Be an Enforcement Priority for CBP
Silica-based products, particularly polysilicon, continue to be classified as “High Priority” sectors for forced labor enforcement by CBP. Indeed, an analysis of CBP’s enforcement data from FY 2023 and FY 2024 reveals that solar goods and components have been a significant target of enforcement actions.
The incoming Trump Administration’s stringent stance on Chinese imports, combined with US Congress’s proactive oversight of UFLPA enforcement, is expected to sustain the momentum of forced labor enforcement within the solar industry. Companies in the solar industry, therefore, should consider conducting regular due diligence of their supply chains to ensure compliance with the UFLPA and other forced labor laws.
How Can We Help?
As the solar industry braces for potential shifts in trade policy and enforcement under President-elect Trump’s second term, it is imperative for companies to remain vigilant and proactive. Our team is here to support your business in navigating these changes.
With the expected increase in tariffs and the ongoing focus on forced labor enforcement, we understand the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for solar manufacturers and importers. We are committed to keeping you informed and prepared to thrive amidst these developments.
IRA Developments to Watch in the EV and Battery Supply Chain for 2025
The incoming Trump Administration’s approach to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and tax policies is generating significant interest within the electric vehicle (EV) sector.
Generally, reports indicate that some Republican politicians, including individuals connected with the Trump Administration, intend to repeal or limit certain IRA tax incentives. US Congress could limit tax incentives by capping a tax credit, for example, or narrowing the activity or outputs eligible for a tax credit.
However, Republican states have invested substantial amounts into projects that benefit from IRA tax incentives. Accordingly, the repeal or limitation of many of the IRA tax incentives could negatively affect Republican constituents, and the Republican-controlled Congress and Trump Administration may seek to avoid such a result.
While exact policy directions are still unfolding, here are some critical areas to follow.
Key Points to Watch in 2025
1. Changes to EV Tax Credits
Reports indicate that Trump’s transition team aims to eliminate the $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases, which was enacted as part of the IRA.
However, other reports suggest that Republicans might leave the IRA largely untouched because Republican states and constituencies have largely benefited from the IRA.
Modifications to the EV tax credits could make EVs more expensive for consumers, potentially slowing adoption and affecting industry growth. The outcome will depend on legislative negotiations and pressures from various constituencies.
2. FEOC Restrictions
Under the IRA, Foreign Enemy of Concern (FEOC) restrictions prevent taxpayers from claiming the $7,500 consumer tax credit if certain critical minerals contained in the EV battery of the purchased EV were extracted, processed, or recycled by an FEOC. Reports indicate that the Trump Administration may extend such FEOC restriction to other IRA tax incentives.
For example, it has been suggested that Congress impose FEOC restrictions on the IRA tax credit available to manufacturers under Section 45X (Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit).
Revisions to the FEOC restrictions under the Trump Administration might impact trade dynamics.
3. FEOC Equity Thresholds
The FEOC restriction limits eligibility for the $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases if certain critical minerals contained in the battery of such EV were extracted, processed, or recycled by a foreign entity that is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of another entity connected with certain foreign governments (generally, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea). A foreign entity is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of another entity if 25% or more of the entity’s board seats, voting rights, or equity interests are held by the other entity.
The Trump Administration may choose to maintain or adjust the current 25% equity threshold for FEOC entities.
If the Trump Administration opts to make the FEOC rules more stringent or tightens other investment regulations for FEOC entities, the Trump Administration may prevent such FEOC entities from benefitting from certain IRA tax incentives.
Investments by these entities in free trade agreement countries or the United States could face additional scrutiny or restrictions, although the extent of permissible equity stakes in such ventures remains uncertain and could be influenced by broader trade considerations, national security, and economic priorities. The Trump Administration’s stance on China and related economic strategies will significantly influence these policies.
4. National Security and IRA Coverage
Changes to the IRA’s coverage of components and constituents, particularly in the context of battery-related products, could be influenced by national security considerations. The Trump Administration might prioritize restrictions on Chinese-made energy storage systems (ESS) and related components due to their strategic importance in critical infrastructure and grid security.
The new Republican Congressional majority could seek amendments through tax reform aiming to address these concerns, potentially modifying or phasing out certain IRA incentives related to clean energy and battery production.
As discussed above, the Trump Administration may seek to impose FEOC restrictions on certain IRA incentives and may cite to national security concerns as a reason for imposing restrictions at certain points in the supply chain through changes to these incentives. However, specific policy directions will also depend on the Trump Administration’s assessment of risks and priorities at the time of such legislative developments.
Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service Issue Final Regulations on Section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit
On 3 January 2025, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released final regulations (Final Rules) implementing the Section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit (Section 45V tax credit) pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). These much-anticipated Final Rules arrive over a year since the holiday-adjacent publication of the proposed regulations on 26 December 2023 (Proposed Rules). Treasury and IRS received approximately 30,000 written comments on the Proposed Rules and conducted a three-day public hearing that included testimony from over 100 participants. Adding to this long saga, the Biden Administration in its waning days has attempted to build upon the Final Rules and promote clean hydrogen production well into the future, announcing a US$1.66 billion loan guarantee by the Department of Energy (DOE) for Plug Power to produce and liquify clean hydrogen fuel. However, these actions come within days of the new Trump Administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, casting some uncertainty over the future of the Final Rules, DOE spending, and, more generally, the Section 45V tax credit.
In the Final Rules, Treasury and IRS made numerous modifications to the Proposed Rules—including notable changes to the controversial “three pillars” (incrementality, deliverability, and temporal matching) of the Energy Attribute Certificate (EAC) framework—largely in an effort to provide flexibility in response to industry concerns without sacrificing the integrity of the credit, while at the same time addressing concerns that substantial indirect emissions would not be taken into account. The Final Rules enable tax credit pathways for hydrogen produced using both electricity and certain methane sources, intending to provide investment certainty while ensuring that clean hydrogen production meets the IRA’s lifecycle emissions standards.
The Final Rules, and primary differences between the Proposed and Final Rules, are discussed below.
EAC Requirements for Electrolytic Hydrogen Production – The Three Pillars
Under both the Proposed and Final Rules, EACs are the established means for documenting and verifying the generation and purchase of electricity to account for the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with hydrogen production. Under this framework, a taxpayer must acquire and retire qualifying EACs to establish, for purposes of the Section 45V tax credit, that it acquired electricity from a specific electric generation facility (and therefore did not rely on electricity sourced via, e.g., the regional electric grid). Like in the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules require that taxpayers seeking to use EACs attribute electricity use to a specific generator that meets certain criteria for temporal matching, deliverability, and incrementality.
Incrementality
As in the Proposed Rule, the Final Rules define electric generation as “incremental” if the generator begins commercial operations within 36 months of the hydrogen facility being placed in service, or is uprated within that period. Treasury and IRS declined to extend the 36-month time frame for eligibility, but, within that 36-month time frame, Treasury and IRS provided more pathways for eligibility. The expanded pathways are as follows:
Uprates
The Final Rules modify the uprate rules to provide additional flexibility to taxpayers in determining “uprated” production capacity from generation facilities. The Final Rules provide that the term “uprate” means the increase in either an electric generating facility’s nameplate capacity (in nameplate megawatts) or its reported actual productive capacity.
Restarted Electric Generation Facilities
Under the Final Rules, EACs can meet the incrementality requirement with electricity from an electric generation facility that is decommissioned or is in decommissioning and restarts. The Final Rules clarify that these facilities can be considered to have additional capacity from a base of zero if that facility was shut down for at least one year.
Qualifying Nuclear Reactors
The Final Rules allow EACs to meet the incrementality requirement with electricity produced from a qualifying nuclear reactor up to 200 MWh per operating hour per reactor. A qualifying nuclear reactor is a “merchant nuclear reactor” or a single-unit plant that competes in a competitive market and does not receive cost recovery through rate regulation or public ownership.
Qualifying States
The Final Rules allow EACs to meet the incrementality requirement if the electricity represented by the EAC is produced by an electric generating facility physically located in a “qualifying state,” i.e., a state that has stringent clean energy standards (for now, California and Washington), and the hydrogen production facility is also located in the qualifying state.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
As authorized by the Final Rules, the “CCS retrofit rule” allows an EAC to meet the incrementality requirement if the electricity represented by the EAC is produced by an electric generating facility that uses CCS technology and the CCS equipment was placed in service no more than 36 months before the hydrogen production facility.
Temporal Matching
The Final Rules maintain the proposed hourly-matching requirement, which requires that the electricity represented by the EAC be generated in the same hour as the hydrogen facility’s use of electricity to produce hydrogen. The Proposed Rules required hourly matching to go into effect in 2028, but the Final Rules have delayed this requirement until 2030. Annual matching is required through 2029. The Final Rules note that this two-year postponement does not prohibit a hydrogen producer from voluntarily implementing hourly matching prior to 2030. Changes in the Final Rules also provide additional flexibility by allowing hydrogen producers to deviate from the annual aggregation of emissions to an hourly basis so long as the four kg CO2e per kg of hydrogen is met on an aggregate annual basis for the facility. This affords a hydrogen producer the ability to optimize the tax credit amount when it is unable to secure EACs during all hours of operation, without suffering severe penalties in the form of lower credit amounts across the entire year. Additionally, each electrolyzer is considered to be an individual qualified facility, which allows a producer to allocate EACs across electrolyzers and time periods to optimize tax credit values for a site.
Reliance Rule
In the Final Rules, Treasury and IRS declined to include a “reliance rule” (i.e., grandfathering) that would allow facilities that meet certain milestones (such as beginning of construction, being placed in service, or commencing commercial operations) by a certain date to continue to use annual matching instead of hourly matching.
Energy Storage
The Final Rules allow hydrogen producers and their electric suppliers to use energy storage, such as batteries, to shift the temporal profile of EACs based on the period of time in which the corresponding electricity is discharged from the storage device. The storage system must be located in the same region as both the hydrogen production facility and the facility generating the electricity to be stored. Storage systems need not themselves meet the incrementality requirement, but the EACs that represent electricity stored in such storage systems must meet the incrementality requirement based on the attributes of the generator of such electricity. EAC registries must be able to track the attributes of the electricity being stored.
Deliverability
As in the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules provide that an EAC meets the deliverability requirement if the electricity represented by the EAC is generated by a facility that is in the same region as the hydrogen production facility. Also, as in the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules establish that, for the duration of the Section 45V tax credit, “region” for purposes of deliverability will be based on the regions delineated in the DOE’s National Transmission Needs Study. Those regions are based on the balancing authority to which the electric generating source and the hydrogen facility are both electrically connected. The table published in the Final Rules is the authoritative source regarding the geographic regions used to determine satisfaction of the deliverability requirement.
Dynamic Deliverability Regions
Treasury and IRS intend to update the regions in future safe harbor administrative guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
Interregional Connections
The Final Rules allow some flexibility on interregional delivery, acknowledging that interregional electric transfers commonly occur. Accordingly, the Final Rules allow an eligible EAC to meet the deliverability requirement in certain instances of actual cross-region delivery where the deliverability of such generation can be tracked and verified. The Final Rules provide specific rules to meet this standard.
Eligibility for Methane-Based Hydrogen Production
The Final Rules also provide pathways for receiving Section 45V tax credits for hydrogen production using biogas, renewable natural gas (RNG), and fugitive sources of methane (collectively, natural gas alternatives). Most notably, the Final Rules dispense with the “first productive use” requirement proposed in the draft regulations, which would have required that the RNG or biogas used to produce hydrogen was not previously used, likening this requirement to the incrementality requirement of the Three Pillars for electrolytic hydrogen. Instead, the Final Rules rely on “alternative fates,” which refer to the assumptions used to estimate emissions from the use or disposal of natural gas alternatives were it not for the natural gas alternative’s new use of producing hydrogen. Under the Final Rules, alternative fates are determined on a categorical basis, rather than adopting a single alternative fate for all natural gas alternatives or adopting alternative fates on an entity-by-entity basis. The alternative fate associated with natural gas alternatives feeds into the “background data” that is entered into the 45VH2-GREET Model. The 45VH2-GREET Model uses that background data to calculate the estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the specific hydrogen production process.
Alternative Fates, as Applied to Sectors
For landfills, coal mine methane, and wastewater sources, flaring is considered the primary alternative fate. For animal waste, the alternative fate is based on a national average of all animal waste management practices for the sector as a whole. For fugitive methane from fossil fuel activities other than coal mining, the alternative fate is the emissions that would otherwise be generated from productive use.
Venting
The Final Rules reject venting as an alternative fate across all sources of natural gas alternatives because it does not account for the prevalence of flaring and productive use, nor does it address the risk of induced emissions due to the incentives provided by the Section 45V tax credit. In taking this position, Treasury and IRS recognize that venting will likely be increasingly prohibited at local, state, and federal levels.
It is worth noting that Treasury’s failure to issue actual draft regulations for a methane-pathway 45V tax credit could increase the likelihood of a successful legal challenge to the 45V Final Rules. It is unclear at this time whether Treasury’s solicitation of comments in response to the questions the agency posed related to RNG as a viable pathway to secure the 45V credit is sufficient to satisfy proper notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Biden Administration’s inclusion of Final Rules related to RNG could be part of a strategic effort aimed at minimizing attacks against the Final Rules by bringing RNG developers to the table.
Other Considerations
Determining Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rates
The Final Rules clarify that the annual determination of the tax credit amount is made separately for each hydrogen production process conducted at a hydrogen production facility during the taxable year. The Final Rules clarify that “process” means the operations conducted by a facility to produce hydrogen (for example, electrolysis or steam methane reforming) during a taxable year using one primary feedstock. CCS equipment that is necessary to meet the 45V emissions thresholds is considered part of the facility for purposes of the credit.
Construction Safe Harbor
The Final Rules allow taxpayers to make an irrevocable election to treat the 45VH2-GREET Model available on the date of construction commencement of the hydrogen production facility as the applicable 45VH2-GREET Model.
Third-Party Disclosure Requirement
As in the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules require that an unrelated third party certify the annual verification report submitted as part of the election to treat qualified property as energy property for purposes of the Section 45V tax credit.
Effective Date
The Final Rules become effective immediately upon their publication in the Federal Register.
Outlook
There is still a great deal of political uncertainty surrounding the Section 45V tax credit due to the incoming Trump Administration and Republican-controlled Congress, which could nullify these regulations through the Congressional Review Act or reduce or eliminate the credits by modifying or rolling back the IRA as part of the budget reconciliation process. There is additionally the potential for litigation challenges to the Final Rules under the new Loper Bright standard for judicial review of agencies’ interpretations of statute.1
Regardless, the Final Rules attempt to lay a foundation for hydrogen development for years to come. Barring political disruption, the Final Rules settle many uncertainties that may have acted as an obstacle to investment in the clean hydrogen sector and the progress of planned projects, including the DOE-funded hydrogen hubs. The Final Rules also generate new questions. As noted above, these Final Rules are effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. The immediate effectiveness and rollout of the Final Rules could contribute to the momentum needed to keep these rules and relevant IRA provisions in place even as administrations change. Strong industry reliance upon these rules may make it less politically palatable or practical to uproot and discard them entirely.
Footnotes
1 For more information on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and how it impacted administrative law, see the following:
The Post-Chevron Toolkit | HUB | K&L Gates
The End of Chevron Deference: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Loper Bright Means for the Regulated Community | HUB | K&L Gates
A Wait Until the Deal Closes: The Antitrust Agencies Send a Strong Message About the Dangers of Gun-Jumping
One of the most common questions clients have after a merger or acquisition has been signed is, “When can we start on combining the operations and doing business?” And one of the most challenging pieces of counseling is to help a client understand the antitrust compliance principle that until a deal closes, the parties must compete as separate and independent entities. While merging companies may plan the integration of their operations, they may not actually integrate their operations or otherwise coordinate their competitive behavior before the transaction has closed without risking a “gun jumping” violation.
Gun-jumping violations can be triggered under two laws: (1) §1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements in restraint of trade (such as price fixing and market allocation); and (2) the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act), which requires parties to certain transactions to submit a premerger notification form and observe the necessary waiting period(s) prior to closing their transaction and the transfer of beneficial ownership.
While there have been a number of gun-jumping enforcement actions over the years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of Department of Justice (DOJ) (collectively, the “Antitrust Agencies”) made it clear recently that these types of violations will be scrutinized and penalized. The Antitrust Agencies imposed a record $5.6 million civil penalty on three crude oil suppliers for engaging in gun-jumping in violation of the HSR Act.1
According to the complaint, XCL Resources Holdings, LLC (XCL) and Verdun Oil Company II LLC (Verdun) filed an HSR for their $1.4 billion acquisition of EP Energy LLC (EP).2 However, prior to the expiration of the HSR waiting period, XCL and Verdun assumed control of a number of EP’s key operations including but not limited to managing EP’s customers and coordinating pricing strategies. These and other actions effectively transferred beneficial ownership to the buyers before the deal closed, in violation of the HSR Act.
The enforcement action is the largest civil penalty ever imposed for a gun-jumping violation in history. Moreover, the Antitrust Agencies imposed a number of antitrust compliance and monitoring obligations on the buyers.
[1]https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/oil-companies-pay-record-ftc-gun-jumping-fine-antitrust-law-violation and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oil-companies-pay-record-civil-penalty-violating-antitrust-pre-transaction-notification
[2]https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/complaintforcivilpenaltiesandequitablereliefforviolationsofthehartscottrodinoact.pdf
Navigating Employer Obligations During California’s Wildfire Disasters
As Los Angeles (the “City”) grapples with the impacts of the devastating wildfires, employers are facing critical decisions about protecting their workforce while maintaining operations. While Cal/OSHA recently urged employers to protect workers from unhealthy air in Los Angeles County, this article will provide further insight on a variety of the complex legal obligations California employers must navigate during wildfire and other natural disaster emergencies.
Wildfire Exception in Los Angeles Fair Work Week Ordinance
The Los Angeles Fair Work Week Ordinance typically imposes strict scheduling requirements on covered employers. However, the City has clarified that wildfire-related closures fall under the ordinance’s force majeure exceptions. Specifically:
The standard 14-day advance notice requirement for work schedules may be suspended when operations are compromised by wildfires.
Employees’ right to decline schedule changes made after the notice deadline may be limited during wildfire emergencies.
The force majeure exception explicitly covers natural disasters, including fires, floods, earthquakes, and other civil disturbances.
Employers must still document and justify any schedule changes made under this exception.
Workplace Safety Requirements Under Cal/OSHA
Under California Labor Code section 6400, employers must provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees. Cal/OSHA’s Protection from Wildfire Smoke standard mandates specific employer obligations when wildfire smoke affects air quality. These requirements include:
Monitoring the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5[1] before and throughout each work shift;
Providing N-95 respirators for voluntary use when AQI for PM2.5 exceeds 150;
Requiring mandatory respirator use when AQI for PM2.5 exceeds 500;
Implementing specific worker training programs about wildfire smoke hazards; and
Tracking air quality through EPA’s AirNow website or local air quality management district resources.[2]
Worker Rights in Evacuation Zones
California law explicitly prohibits employer retaliation against workers who refuse to work in unsafe conditions, including within evacuation zones. California Labor Code section 6311 protects workers who refuse to perform work in violation of occupational safety or health standards where such violation creates a real and apparent hazard. Additionally, section 1102.5 prohibits employer retaliation against workers exercising such rights. Employers should ensure that they abide by evacuation orders when issued by appropriate authorities. For more information, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) has an infographic regarding Worker Safety Wildfire Smoke and Evacuation Zones.
Wage and Hour Obligations During Emergency Closures
Employers must also navigate complex wage and hour requirements during natural disasters. California Labor Code Section 204 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) require employers to maintain regular payment schedules even during emergencies. If a workplace is forced to close due to wildfire danger or evacuation orders, exempt employees must generally receive their full salary for any workweek in which they perform any work. Non-exempt employees, however, generally only need to be paid for hours actually worked, though reporting time pay requirements under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders may apply if employees report to work but are sent home due to wildfire-related closures.
Employee Accommodations and Leave Rights
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides protections to employees who need accommodations due to wildfire-related conditions in specific circumstances. For instance, employees with respiratory conditions may require additional accommodations when working in smoke-affected areas.
The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and/or Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles leave to employees with a serious health condition caused or exacerbated by a natural disaster, including smoke from wildfires. California Labor Code Section 233 (also known as the “Kin Care” law) and various local ordinances may also provide employees with the right to use accrued paid sick leave to care for family members affected by wildfire evacuations or related health issues.
WARN Act Considerations and Business Planning
Natural disasters like wildfires may trigger obligations under Labor Code Sections 1400-1408. This law, known as the WARN Act, typically requiring a 60 days’ notice before a mass layoff or closure. While Courts and the California Labor Commissioner have generally interpreted the Act’s “physical calamity” exception to include natural disasters like wildfires, employers should note that this exception is narrowly interpreted and excludes foreseeable business circumstances and economic downturns even if caused by disaster. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the DIR issued Guidance providing insight on the “physical calamity” exception.
Given these issues, employers should review their employment and insurance policies, as well as their disaster preparedness plans, to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and to minimize potential liability during these challenging circumstances.
[1] PM2.5, or particulate matter 2.5, is a term for tiny particles in the air that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter.
[2] Air quality can be tracked through websites like the U.S. EPA’s AirNow or local air quality management district websites. Employers can also use their own instruments to measure PM2.5 at worksites per Cal/OSHA’s requirements.
Listen to this post
Navigating Tariff Threats Under the Trump Administration, Challenges Ahead for the EV and Battery Supply Chain
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office on January 20, numerous tariff proposals have already been put forward that could significantly impact the electric vehicle (EV) and battery supply chain industry. Differentiating between the potential for immediate tariff actions and those requiring more time to implement is critical for companies that are in preparation of such actions.
In general, the imposition of new duties or tariffs typically requires congressional oversight and findings from relevant government agencies, a process that can extend over several months. This includes mechanisms such as the Section 301 tariffs on imports of China-origin products, where tariffs on EVs, battery parts, and critical minerals were recently increased, along with future increases on semiconductors, natural graphite, and permanent magnets that are scheduled for action. Expanding these existing actions would take time for the administration to implement.
However, President-elect Trump may seek to expedite tariff impositions through alternative legal avenues such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While unprecedented, these actions would align with the upcoming administration’s proposals, including potential duty increases on imports from Mexico and Canada, where reports suggest implementation as early as the President-elect’s first day in office.
Such measures could significantly impact the EV supply chain and related industries, necessitating close monitoring of these developments during 2025.
What to Watch in 2025 and Beyond
1. Tariff Increases and Trade Policies: The Trump Administration’s trade policies are expected to focus on increasing tariffs, particularly on imports from China. The continuation or expansion of Section 301 tariffs on EVs, battery parts, and critical minerals could raise costs and disrupt supply chains. The administration may expedite tariff impositions through legal avenues like the IEEPA, potentially impacting imports from a host of US trading partners. Close monitoring of policy developments is the first step. Understanding their transactional impact can mitigate tariff exposure and corporate uncertainty.
2. Global Competitiveness and Supply Chain Dependencies: The administration’s protectionist stance may bolster domestic production but could also increase manufacturing costs and limit vehicle choices. The emphasis on “decoupling” from China suggests a continuation of aggressive tariff strategies, particularly on critical minerals essential for EV batteries. Industry stakeholders seeking to explore a diversified supply chains will need strategic advice prior to launching new production sites or supply partners.
3. USMCA: The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is scheduled for a trilateral review and renegotiation during 2026. Key provisions in the pact are particularly important for the EV supply chain into the United States. Some of President-elect Trump’s tariff proposals on Mexico and Canada could be tactics for leverage in the lead-up to these negotiations and provide opportunities for the Trump Administration to negotiate Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with other countries, potentially affecting the EV and battery supply chain. Industry leaders should take stock of their current use of the USMCA tariff preference opportunities and what potential changes in the minutiae of trade rules could mean for both suppliers and customers. While 2026 is the year of USMCA talks, 2025 will be the year of industry consultations by Ottawa, Washington, and Mexico City.
4. FTAs and Trade Negotiations: The Trump Administration may prioritize renegotiating existing FTAs and pursuing new agreements with countries that align to the administration’s goals for domestic EV and battery production. The direction of such potential FTA developments will likely be impacted by the upcoming USMCA renegotiations. The US-Japan Trade Agreement could also serve as a framework for limited bilateral FTAs with new partners. FTA’s bring tariff preferences but they also require a sophisticated understanding of country-of-origin rules and other trade calculations that are far from intuitive. Stakeholders may wish to seek our advice on particular FTAs with key US trade partners to be best prepared to understand company-specific implications and to work with Washington during the negotiation stages.
5. Legal and Political Challenges in Trade Policy: While the president has some authority to influence trade agreements, unilateral withdrawal from FTAs could face legal and political challenges from Congress. The administration may use national security exceptions to modify duty-free provisions, but such actions would require careful justification. The potential for uncertainty and long-term risk exposure is high for companies involved in the EV manufacturing industry.
California Wildfires—Insurance Tips for Policyholders
The recent wildfires in California have clearly had a catastrophic impact, destroying a vast number of homes and business premises across the region. Homeowners and businesses may have limited means to protect against nature’s forces, but, in this alert, we provide tips on steps that can be taken to protect against denials of coverage by insurers. Careful and proactive attention to insurance coverage considerations could be the key to restoring homes and business operations and weathering the financial storms that follow from such disastrous events.
Potentially Relevant Insurance Policies
It is vital for affected homeowners and businesses to review all relevant or potentially relevant insurance policies promptly, including excess-layer policies, and to comply with loss notification procedures. The most common source of coverage for most individuals and businesses is likely to be first-party property coverage insuring the damaged premises and other assets, including against the risk of fire, smoke, and related damage. In many cases, this insurance will be supplemented by specialty coverages that apply to specific situations.
For businesses, the coverage will typically include the following:
Property damage where losses are caused to the business premises and assets, including computers and machinery.
Business interruption (BI) where the business experiences loss of earnings or revenue due to property damage or loss of use caused by an insured peril, for a specified period of time after the insured event or until normal business operations have been resumed.
Contingent BI which generally covers loss of revenue arising from damage to the property of a supplier, customer, or other business partner.
Denial of access, where use or access to the insured property is prevented or restricted for a specific period of time, for example, if roads or bridges leading to the property have been blocked or destroyed.
Civil authority coverage, which covers losses arising from an order made by a civil or government authority that interferes with normal business operations.
Service interruption coverage, which typically covers the insured for losses related to electricity or interruption of other utilities or supplies.
Extra expense incurred to enable business operations to be resumed or to mitigate other losses.
When presenting an insurance claim, it is important that policy provisions are considered against the backdrop of potentially applicable insurance coverage law to ensure that the policyholder is taking the steps necessary to maximize coverage. Many property policies are written on an “all risks” basis, but there will typically be exclusions, sublimits, or restrictions applicable to certain perils or circumstances. Some coverages may be subject to different policy limits and policy deductibles that impact the amount of coverage available. A proper analysis of the policy wording is vital to enable the insured to take full advantage of the coverage provided.
Practical Tips to Maximize Coverage
There are several steps policyholders should consider when making an insurance claim arising from natural disasters like the California fires:
Be Proactive in Notifying Insurers
Most policies identify specific procedures to be followed in presenting a claim, and there are likely to be timing deadlines associated with them. Failure to comply may result in insurers seeking to restrict or deny coverage for a claim otherwise covered by the policy. Policyholders should carefully consider any notice requirements, including any clause allowing for notice of a loss or an event that may or is likely to give rise to a claim. Prompt notification may assist policyholders in securing early access to loss mitigation resources and related coverages.
Early Assessment of Coverage
There are significant benefits in evaluating coverage at an early stage to understand any issues that may impact the way in which the claim is presented. Consultation with experienced coverage lawyers will assist in identifying and analyzing responsive policies as well as anticipating coverage issues or exclusions insurers might seek to rely upon.
Collate and Preserve Relevant Documents
Insurers typically require proof of loss and damage along with extensive supporting documentation. It is critical to take steps early on to ensure that potentially relevant documents and electronic records are located and preserved. In particular, insurers may argue that some part of the revenue loss is attributable to other causes, such as poor business decisions or economic downturn, such that historical records often must be examined and relied upon.
Preparation of Proof of Loss
The preparation of a detailed inventory and proof of loss is a time-consuming and challenging process but can prove invaluable in seeking to challenge any settlement offers made by the insurers or any loss adjustors appointed on their behalf. Many commercial policies include claim preparation coverage, which covers costs associated with compiling a detailed claim submission. The appointment of independent loss assessors or forensic accountants can prove particularly beneficial for collating BI losses, which are often challenged by insurers. For example, insurers may adopt a narrow view of what constitutes “interruption” to the business, particularly where certain business activities are ongoing.
Advance Payments
Any delays by insurers in making appropriate and periodic payments will delay the rebuilding of premises and the resumption of business operations. Insureds should consider requests for interim or advance payments, prior to completion of the loss adjustment process, particularly if the policy expressly provides for this.
Evaluating and Challenging Insurer Positions
The validity of any coverage defenses or limitations raised by insurers will be impacted by the precise wording of the insurance contract and by the applicable governing law. Experienced coverage counsel will be able to assist an insured in assessing the merit and viability of any coverage issues raised by insurers, or by their appointed loss adjusters, and in maximizing the insured’s potential recovery.
New U.S. Sanctions Targeting Russia’s Energy Sector
On Jan. 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Treasury announced several new types of sanctions that will affect U.S. and global service providers to the Russian energy sector.
The first of these sanctions will prohibit U.S. persons, including U.S. persons located abroad, from providing petroleum services to any person located in Russia. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) plans to issue regulations defining “petroleum services,” but they are likely to include services related to exploration, drilling, well completion, production, refining, processing, storage, maintenance, transportation, purchase, acquisition, testing, inspection, transfer, sale, trade, distribution, or marketing of crude oil and petroleum products.
These sanctions will enter into effect on Feb. 27, 2025, so U.S. persons have a limited time to wind down affected transactions.
In addition, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury issued a determination under Executive Order 14024 that authorizes imposing economic sanctions on any person – whether U.S. or non-U.S. – that is subsequently determined to be operating in the Russian energy sector. OFAC plans to define the “energy sector of the Russian Federation economy” to encompass not just petroleum products, but also natural gas, biofuels, coal, nuclear and other renewable energy.
This determination has broad extraterritorial implications, because it exposes non-U.S. entities to potential sanctions. As a preview, OFAC simultaneously used the determination to impose sanctions on Russia’s major oil companies, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas. However, the determination could be used to impose sanctions on entities from any country that operate in the Russian energy sector.
“The United States is taking sweeping action against Russia’s key source of revenue for funding its brutal and illegal war against Ukraine . . . With today’s actions, we are ratcheting up the sanctions risk associated with Russia’s oil trade, including shipping and financial facilitation in support of Russia’s oil exports.”
home.treasury.gov/…
Treasury Department and IRS Release Final Regulations for Section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit
On January 3, 2025, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 45V (the Final Regulations) with respect to credits for the production of clean hydrogen (the 45V Credit). The Final Regulations generally retain the requirements set forth in the proposed regulations under Code Section 45V (the Proposed Regulations)[1] with respect to the “three pillars” (incrementality, temporal matching and deliverability) for hydrogen produced using clean power but provide leniency with respect to each pillar. The Final Regulations also provide critical new guidance on hydrogen produced using methane reformation technologies. Taxpayers may rely on the Final Regulations as of January 10, 2025.
Background
Code Section 45V provides a tax credit for the production of clean hydrogen at a qualified clean hydrogen production facility for 10 years beginning on the date the facility is placed in service. The 45V Credit is technology agnostic in that qualification for the credit is not dependent on how the clean hydrogen is produced. The 45V Credit is generally calculated as the product of the kilograms of qualified clean hydrogen produced at a qualified clean hydrogen production facility and the applicable rate. The applicable rate is based on the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rate of the hydrogen production process. Taxpayers qualify for an increased 45V Credit amount if the construction, alteration and repair of the qualified clean hydrogen production facility complies with the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
Electricity Used in Hydrogen Production
The Final Regulations generally retain the requirements of the three pillars set forth in the Proposed Regulations regarding the utilization of energy attribute certificates (EACs) to establish a GHG emissions rate. As compared to the Proposed Regulations, the Final Regulations provide leniency with respect to each pillar.
Incrementality. The incrementality requirement is met if the electricity generating facility that produced the electricity has a commercial operation date, or increase in rated nameplate capacity, no more than 36 months before the relevant hydrogen production facility was placed in service. The Final Regulations include three new sources of electricity generation that will be considered incremental regardless of whether the 36-month requirement is satisfied: (i) electricity generated at certain nuclear facilities (with a cap of 200 megawatt-hours per operating hour per reactor); (ii) electricity generated in states with GHG emissions policies meeting certain criteria (such as California and Washington); and (iii) electricity generated at a facility that added carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) equipment within 36 months prior to the date the hydrogen production facility is placed in service.
Temporal Matching. The temporal matching requirement is met if the electricity is generated (i) until 2030, in the same year as, or (ii) beginning in 2030, in the same hour as, the taxpayer’s hydrogen production facility uses electricity to produce hydrogen. The Proposed Regulations provided that hourly matching described in clause (ii) would be required beginning in 2028.
Deliverability. The deliverability requirement is met if the electricity is generated by a facility in the same region as the hydrogen production facility. The Final Regulations provide flexibility for demonstrating certain electricity transfers between regions and allow taxpayers to import clean power from other regions under certain circumstances.
Methane Used in Hydrogen Production
The Final Regulations provide rules for how taxpayers can claim the 45V Credit for hydrogen produced using methane reformation technologies, including those using CCS, renewable natural gas (RNG) and fugitive sources of methane (e.g., from wastewater, animal waste, landfill gas and coal mine operations). The Final Regulations provide rules on how to calculate lifecycle GHG emissions from these sources.
Alternative Fate Standard. The Final Regulations do not include a “first productive use” requirement contemplated by the Proposed Regulations, which would require hydrogen produced using RNG and coal mine methane systems to originate from the first productive use. Instead, the Final Regulations take into account the “alternative fate” of feedstocks.
Gas EACs. The Final Regulations introduce the “gas energy attribute certificate” (Gas EAC), which is defined as a tradeable contractual instrument, issued through a qualified Gas EAC registry or accounting system, that represents the attributes of a specific unit of RNG or coal mine methane. Hydrogen producers using RNG or coal mine methane will be able to acquire and retire Gas EACs as a mechanism for establishing such sources were used in the production of clean hydrogen.
Temporal matching and deliverability requirements similar to those described in the context of hydrogen produced using electricity apply to Gas EACs. The Final Regulations require monthly matching for a Gas EAC to satisfy the temporal matching requirement, and require geographic matching within the contiguous United States to satisfy the deliverability requirement.
Book-and-Claim. The Final Regulations endorse a book-and-claim framework for hydrogen produced using RNG or coal mine methane systems. Book-and-claim systems will enable taxpayers to claim use of RNG or coal mine methane despite the absence of a direct exclusive pipeline connection to a facility that generates RNG or from which fugitive methane is being sourced. Taxpayers will be able to begin using book-and-claim systems no earlier than in 2027, after the Secretary of Treasury determines when a system meets the requirements set forth in the Final Regulations.
GREET Model
The Final Regulations require that lifecycle GHG emissions be measured “well-to-gate” as determined under the most recent Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model. Well-to-gate emissions are the aggregate lifecycle GHG emissions related to the hydrogen produced at the hydrogen production facility during the taxable year through the point of production. Well-to-gate emissions include emissions associated with feedstock growth, gathering, extraction, processing and delivery to a hydrogen production facility.
The Final Regulations allow hydrogen producers to use the version of the 45VH2-GREET model that was in effect when the hydrogen production facility began construction for the duration of the credit. This provision enhances investment certainty by ensuring that hydrogen producers are not subject to unexpected changes to the 45VH2-GREET model over the credit period.
The Final Regulations provide that upstream methane leakage rates will be based on default national values in the 45VH2-GREET model. Future releases of the 45VH2-GREET model, however, are expected to incorporate facility-specific upstream methane leakage rates based on data provided by the Environmental Protection Agency.
[1] We discussed the Proposed Regulations in a previous client alert.
Environmental Developments to Watch in California in 2025
Contaminants of Concern
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
In September 2024, California’s legislature enacted two new bills restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products.
AB 347 – This statute gives California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) enforcement authority over existing PFAS restrictions on textile articles (AB 1817), juvenile products (AB 652), and cookware and food packaging (AB 1200) (the “covered products” under the “covered PFAS restrictions”). AB 347 also requires manufacturers of covered products to submit a registration to DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance to DTSC confirming that each covered product complies with the covered PFAS restriction on the sale or distribution of the product that contains regulated PFAS. DTSC will begin enforcing this legislation after July 1, 2030. Given DTSC is the enforcement authority for the above-mentioned covered products, we expect DTSC to release guidance on interpreting AB 1817, AB 652, and AB 1200 in the future.
AB 2515 – This statute prohibits companies from manufacturing, selling, or distributing menstrual products that contain regulated PFAS. “Regulated PFAS” means PFAS “intentionally added to a product” as of January 1, 2025, and will mean “PFAS in a product at or above a limit determined by the department” beginning January 1, 2027. Like AB 347, AB 2515 requires manufacturers to register with DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance confirming that menstrual products do not contain regulated PFAS.
We expect DTSC to initiate the rulemaking process for both statutes, which would include regulations regarding accepted testing methods for PFAS levels in menstrual products and third-party laboratory accreditations, and regulations to implement, interpret, and enforce the statutes. Both statutes require DTSC to adopt these regulations before January 1, 2029.
Proposition 65
California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq. (“Proposition 65”) prohibits persons in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to certain listed chemicals above a safe harbor level, where one exists, without first providing a “clear and reasonable” warning to such individuals. (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6). The law applies to consumer product exposures, occupational exposures, and environmental exposures that occur in California. Presently, there are approximately 900 listed chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, or both.
In 2025, we will continue to see developments in the implementation and enforcement of this law, of which manufacturers and retailers selling products in California should be aware.
Vinyl Acetate
On December 19, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) Carcinogenic Identification Committee (CIC) voted to list vinyl acetate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. Vinyl acetate is primarily used in glues, plastics, paints, paper coatings, and textiles. Exposure to the chemical can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, or ingestion.
Vinyl acetate was listed despite industry groups claiming that none of the recognized Proposition 65 authoritative bodies consider the chemical to be a carcinogen. OEHHA published evidence of the carcinogenicity of vinyl acetate, which was used by the CIC to support the listing.
Once listed, businesses have 12 months to provide any required warnings.
Warning Labels
Safe harbor regulations provide examples of long-form and short-form warnings deemed “clear and reasonable,” which, if followed, offer businesses an affirmative defense in the event of enforcement. On December 6, 2024, OEHHA amended Proposition 65 to require companies to add at least one chemical name—or the name of two chemicals, if the warning covers both cancer and reproductive toxicity, unless the same chemical is listed for both endpoints—to the short-form warning on the product label for products manufactured and labeled after January 1, 2028. For example:
“[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
OEHHA has authorized the continued used of the earlier short-form warning template (that does not name the chemical) for products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028:
“[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
Manufacturers and retailers selling products in California containing listed chemicals should review their product labeling protocols, as non-compliance may result in an enforcement action. Some manufacturers have employed generic short-form warnings to forestall enforcement actions without determining whether their products actually exposed consumers to listed chemicals. This practice will not be effective after 2027.
Amended Acrylamide Warning Label
On January 1, 2025, OEHHA’s amendments to acrylamide warning label requirements took effect. The new regulation provides:
Warnings must now contain either:
“WARNING”
“CA WARNING”; or
“CALIFORNIA WARNING.”
The warning must be followed by either:
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide;” or
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a chemical formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures.”
The warning must also be followed by at least one of the following:
“The International Agency for Research on Cancer has found that acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans;”
“The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found that acrylamide is likely to be carcinogenic to humans;” or
“The United States National Toxicology Program has found that acrylamide is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.”
The warning may be followed by one or more of the following:
“Acrylamide has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals”;
“Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and amount of chemical consumed”’ or
“For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.”
The newly amended warning language comes after years of ongoing litigation alleging that the previous warning mandate violated the First Amendment (California Chamber of Commerce v. Rob Bonta (2:19-cv-2019 DJC JDP)). Challengers allege that the warning remains unconstitutional as the state has failed to show that the warnings are purely factual and uncontroversial. As described below, the First Amendment is proving to be an effective defense in some circumstances.
Litigation Update: The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta
In recent years, the First Amendment has served as a powerful tool for companies subject to Proposition 65 labeling requirements. A 2025 ruling in The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta (2:23-cv-01006) will determine the legality of warning labeling requirements regarding titanium dioxide in consumer products. In 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is poised to rule on the parties’ motions in the case. If the Court grants the Personal Care Products Council’s (PCPC) summary judgment motion, the ruling will have far-reaching impacts on the enforcement of Proposition 65, bolstering the First Amendment defense to Proposition 65 claims where there is a reasonable scientific debate about the hazards of the listed chemical.
The action was brought in 2023 by PCPC a non-profit association of businesses in the cosmetic and personal care products industry, which sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity.
On June 12, 2024, the District Court issued an Order granting PCPC’s request for a preliminary injunction enjoining Bonta and all private enforcers of Proposition 65 from filing new lawsuits to enforce the law’s warning requirement for exposures to titanium dioxide. The District Court agreed with PCPC that the “Prop 65 warning requirements for Listed Titanium Dioxide are not purely factual because they tend to mislead the average consumer” since the warnings may convey a “false and/or misleading message that Listed Titanium Dioxide causes cancer in humans or will increase a consumer’s risk of cancer.” This, according to the District Court, renders PCPC likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claim under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (government may compel commercial speech so long as it is reasonably related to substantial governmental interest, purely factual, noncontroversial, and not unjustified or unduly burdensome).
PCPC’s pending summary judgment motion was filed on September 10, 2024. If granted, this will be the third case successfully challenging Proposition 65 warnings on First Amendment grounds, with previous cases involving designated glyphosate and acrylamide. See Nat’l. Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023); Cal. Chamber of Comm. v. Bonta, 529 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2021).
Here, the District Court’s June 12, 2024 ruling dramatically halted the prosecution of countless pending claims against cosmetic companies and retailers of cosmetics. A favorable ruling for PCPC in 2025 may embolden companies subject to Proposition 65 requirements to bring an array of constitutional challenges with respect to other designated chemicals, specifically businesses selling products containing a designated chemical where the underlying scientific basis for its designation is controversial. The District Court’s language strongly casts doubt on the constitutionality of “misleading” Proposition 65 labels that lack an adequate scientific basis.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Recycling
California continues to pave the way for EPR laws that affect various products. Rulemaking efforts will continue through 2025.
AB 863 – Carpets
Governor Newsom approved AB 863 on September 27, 2024, governing carpet recycling in California. California enacted its first carpet stewardship law in 2010 and has since amended it multiple times. The latest law maintains several basic facets and updates the governance structure of California’s current carpet stewardship program but nominally converts it to a carpet producer responsibility program following the expiration of the current 2023-2027 five-year carpet stewardship plan. The new law punts many specifics of the new program to the discretion of CalRecycle, including performance standards and metrics, key definitions, deadlines, and grounds for approving or revoking an approved plan. CalRecycle must adopt implementing regulations effective no earlier than December 31, 2026. The law purports to deem CalRecycle’s adopted “performance standards” as immune from judicial review under the California Administrative Procedure Act. The law also calls for certain amendments to the existing carpet stewardship plan to be proposed and adopted sooner.
The new law requires all carpet producers doing business in California to form and register with a single producer responsibility organization (PRO). The law requires the PRO to develop a producer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, recycling, and safe and proper management of covered products in California, along with related public outreach regarding the plan; review the plan at least every five years after approval; and submit annual reports to CalRecycle. An approved plan must be in place within 24 months of the effective date of CalRecycle’s regulations under the new law, which may result in a deadline as early as December 31, 2028. All reports and records must be provided to CalRecycle under penalty of perjury. The law restricts public access to certain information collected for the purpose of administering this program.
The PRO must establish and provide a covered product assessment to be added to the purchase price of a covered product sold in the state by a producer to a California retailer or wholesaler or otherwise sold for use in the state. Each retailer and wholesaler is then required to add the assessment to the purchase price of all covered product sold in the state. This assessment of carpet sales in California parallels existing law. The new law does not specify any other available funding methods for implementing its requirements. The new law also requires the PRO to pay fees to CalRecycle, not to exceed CalRecycle’s actual and reasonable regulatory costs to implement and enforce the program. It further newly requires all carpet sold in California to contain 5% of post-consumer recycled carpet content by 2028, and grants CalRecycle authority to set new rates for 2029 and beyond.
Additionally, the new law requires carpet producers to provide additional information to CalRecycle regarding California carpet sales and compliance with the requirements of an approved plan. CalRecycle must post on its website a list of producers that are in compliance with the requirements of the program. The existing carpet stewardship plan must be amended to allocate 8% of collected assessments to unions for apprenticeship program grants. Compared to current law, penalties for violations increase from $5,000 per day to $10,000 per day, and from $10,000 per day to $25,000 per day if the violation is intentional, knowing, or negligent. CalRecycle may audit a carpet stewardship organization and individual producers annually The law also clarifies that a carpet stewardship organization cannot delegate decision-making responsibility regarding a carpet stewardship plan to a person who is not a member of the organization’s board.
SB 707 – Textiles
In September 2024, California’s legislature enacted the first, and only current, statewide EPR textile program in the U.S. with the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024. The Act requires qualified producers of apparel or textile articles to form and join a PRO that CalRecycle will approve by March 1, 2026. All eligible producers must join the PRO by July 1, 2026. Once formed, the PRO must submit a statewide plan for the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, recycling, and the safe and proper management of covered clothing and textiles to CalRecycle for review. Once the plan is approved, retailers, importers, distributors, and online marketplaces will not be permitted to sell, distribute, offer for sale, or import a covered product into the state unless the producer of the covered product is listed as in compliance. The PRO will charge each participant-producer annual fees for its operation.
By July 1, 2030, or upon approval of the plan, whichever occurs first, noncompliant producers of covered products will be subject to administrative civil penalties up to $50,000 per day.
The Act directs CalRecycle to adopt regulations to implement its provisions with an effective date of no earlier than July 1, 2028. The rulemaking process will be carried out in accordance with California’s Administrative Procedure Act, which provides opportunities for the public, including industry representatives, to shape the policy going forward. Rulemaking efforts associated with SB 707 are not yet listed on CalRecycle’s website, but given the short deadlines imposed by the Act, we can expect updates in the near future.
AB 187 – Mattresses
California’s legislature established the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act (Mattress EPR Act) in 2013 and most recently updated it in 2019. The Mattress EPR Act, which CalRecycle administers, applies to manufacturers, renovators, distributors, and retailers that sell, offer for sale, or import a mattress into California. At least once every five years, the mattress recycling organization reviews the plan for the recovery and recycling of used mattresses and determines whether amendments are necessary. Each year, CalRecycle, through the Mattress Recycling Council, posts lists of compliant manufacturers, renovators, and distributors on its website. If the manufacturer, brand, renovator, or distributor is not on this list, no retailer or distributor may sell a mattress in the state until the department affirms they are in compliance.
CalRecycle may impose an administrative civil penalty of not more than $500 per day on any manufacturer, mattress recycling organization, distributor, recycler, renovator, or retailer violating the Mattress EPR Act. However, if the violation is intentional, knowing, or reckless, the department may impose an administrative civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day.
SB 551 – Beverage Containers
SB 551, or the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, took effect on September 29, 2024 as an urgency statute, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution. Plastic beverage containers sold by a beverage manufacturer must contain a specified average percentage of post-consumer recycled plastic per year. Manufacturers of beverages sold in a plastic beverage container subject to the California Redemption Value fee must report to CalRecycle certain information about the amounts of virgin plastic and post-consumer recycled plastic used for those containers for sale in California in the previous calendar year. The law authorizes certain beverage manufacturers to submit a consolidated report to CalRecycle with other beverage manufacturers, in lieu of individual reports, if those beverage manufacturers share rights to the same brands or the products of which are distributed, marketed, or manufactured by a single reporting beverage manufacturer. This consolidated report must be submitted under penalty of perjury and pursuant to standardized forms prescribed by CalRecycle.
SB 54 – Plastics and Packaging
At the start of this year, CalRecycle was required to adopt any necessary regulations to implement and enforce its Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54). SB 54 imposes EPR on “producers” of packaging materials for achieving the source reduction, recyclability or composability, and recycling rates for their products. Producers may comply with SB 54’s requirements by either joining the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the PRO selected by the state to administer SB 54, or through assuming individual responsibility for compliance.
CalRecycle met its regulation deadline under SB 54 by publishing the Source Reduction Baseline Report on December 31, 2024, followed by updates to the list of Covered Material Categories regulated by SB 54 on January 1, 2025. The updates to the Covered Material Categories include an increase in materials considered to be “recyclable” or “compostable” while the Source Reduction Baseline Report establishes a baseline measurement for the Department and CAA to define source reduction targets, develop plans and budgets, and the track progress of SB 54’s implementation.
On January 1, 2025, SB 54’s prohibition on the sale, distribution, or importation of expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service items—unless the producer can demonstrate that all EPS used in the state meets a recycling rate of least 25%—went into effect. EPS food service producers may now be subject to notices of violation from CalRecycle and enforcement of penalties for noncompliance of up to $50,000 per violation, per day. Recycling rate mandates for plastic-covered materials do not go into effect until 2028.
SB 1143 – Paint
In September 2024, California enacted SB 1143, which expands the state’s existing Architectural Paint Recovery Program to include a wider range of paint products. “Paint product” is now defined to include interior and exterior architectural coatings, aerosol coating products, nonindustrial coatings, and coating-related products sold in containers of five gallons or less for commercial or homeowner use.
The law tasks CalRecycle with administering the program and approving a stewardship plan for the newly covered paint products. Retailers, importers, distributors, and online marketplaces will be prohibited from selling, offering for sale, or importing these products in California unless the producers are in compliance with the stewardship plan. Producers may comply with SB 1143 requirements by either joining PaintCare, the only recognized paint stewardship organization representing paint manufacturers in California, or through assuming individual responsibility for compliance.
All eligible products must comply with the new requirements by January 1, 2028, or an earlier date set by an approved stewardship plan. By July 1, 2030, or upon approval of the plan, whichever comes first, noncompliant producers will face administrative civil penalties up to $50,000 per day.
Climate Regulation
SB 261 and SB 253
After a year of uncertainty driven by budget constraints, California seems poised to implement its climate disclosure laws (SB 261 and SB 253) that were first passed in 2023. In September 2024, the Legislature passed SB 219, which granted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) a 6-month extension to issue the requisite rules that must be adopted by no later than July 1, 2025. CARB is responsible for administering SB 261 and SB 253.
On December 16, 2024, CARB posted an Information Solicitation that calls for public comments on the implementation of the laws and related issues. The Information Solicitation also invites input on key aspects of the climate disclosure framework that have been subject to speculation since the laws were enacted, such as the definition of “entity that does business in California” (clarifying the cohort within the scope of the laws); the methods for measuring and reporting scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions; and third-party verification and assurance requirements. The deadline to submit comments through CARB’s website is February 14, 2025.
Cal Chamber v. CARB
On January 30, 2024, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. California Air Resources Board (CARB) et al., No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. 2024) challenging SB 253 and SB 261 for violation of the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the U.S. Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, including the dormant Commerce Clause.
Regarding the First Amendment facial challenge, the Plaintiffs alleged the laws “compel companies to publicly express a speculative, noncommercial, controversial, and politically-charged message that they otherwise would not express.” Concerning the Supremacy Clause, they argued that by requiring companies to make speculative public statements about emissions and climate-related financial risk, the laws enable “activists and policymakers to single out companies,” pressuring them to reduce emissions within and outside California. As for the constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs alleged that California lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions outside of the state and that the laws are invalid under the U.S. Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation because they heavily intrude on Congress’s authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
To expedite the District Court’s ruling, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment challenge. Simultaneously, CARB moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Supremacy Clause and extraterritorial regulation claims. On November 5, 2024, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court held that the First Amendment applied to SB 253 and 261; however, it concluded that the constitutional challenge involves factual questions that go beyond pure legal analysis and thus, completing a “fact-driven task” was necessary to decide which of the laws’ applications violate the First Amendment. It held that further discovery is required to complete this “fact-driven” task.
The District Court indicated that it would address CARB’s motion to dismiss in a separate order. That motion is pending as of the date of this publication.
SB 1383 – Organic Waste & Food Collection
Since CalRecycle adopted regulations implementing SB 1383, California communities have made progress in diverting and reducing the disposal of organic waste and thereby reducing the amount of methane emissions from landfills. According to California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, 93% of jurisdictions with requirements for collection reported having residential organics collection, and 100% of California communities expanded programs to send still-fresh, unsold food to Californians in need, reducing the waste large food businesses send to landfills every year. Through SB 619, 126 jurisdictions have been granted additional time to comply with SB 1383 regulations.
While progress has been made, local jurisdictions continue to struggle to meet the law’s mandates (namely, reduce organic waste disposal by 75% and reduce edible food waste by 20% by 2025). Rather than revising those mandates or pausing the implementation of SB 1383 to ensure jurisdictions weren’t sanctioned for missing implementation deadlines, the legislature enacted a number of laws to address some of the concerns raised by the regulated community. These include SB 2902, AB 2346, and SB 1046.
SB 2902 extends the rural jurisdiction exemption to comply with organics collection and procurement requirements until January 1, 2027. AB 2346 allows jurisdictions to count specified compost products toward their goals and adopt a five-year procurement target instead of annual goals, and SB 1046 directs CalRecycle to create a programmatic environmental impact report for small to medium composting facilities, aiding local governments and composters by streamlining permitting.
Although CalRecycle initiated formal enforcement actions in 2024, there is no indication that the agency has fined or sanctioned any jurisdiction for non-compliance. As the 2025 target date has now passed, expect enforcement efforts to increase in the months and years ahead.
Energy Efficiency Standards
As covered in our December 10, 2024 news alert, manufacturers and sellers of consumer products in California should be aware that the California Energy Commission continues to bring more enforcement actions and assess large civil penalties for violations of its Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Program. At a time when federal appliance efficiency standard enforcement is expected to recede due to the recent presidential election and imminent transition, California enforcement is likely to continue to grow. Regulated businesses, therefore, should pay increasing attention to Title 20 compliance, not only to avoid large fines but also to ensure continued access to their products in the lucrative California market.
Stationary Source Regulation
AB 1465 – Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) Granted Authority to Seek Triple Penalties
For years, the penalty ceilings in California’s Health & Safety Code have limited the ability of California’s regional AQMDs to collect civil penalties for rule violations. Starting January 1, 2025, AB 1465 tripled these ceilings. For example, the typical maximum penalty for strict liability violations—previously $12,090 per violation—has escalated to $36,270 per violation. The new law also requires that air districts (or a court) consider items like health impacts and community disruptions when evaluating penalty amounts (in addition to other factors required to be considered by law). These elevated ceilings only apply to stationary sources that have a Federal Clean Air Act Title V permit and emit certain defined compounds. How air districts will wield this new authority has yet to be seen, but we expect to see increasing penalties for many sources as a result.
Indirect Source Rules Will Continue to be a Hot Topic
While regional air districts are generally limited in their legal authority to regulate mobile sources (that authority is reserved for California’s state air regulator, CARB), indirect source rules (regulation of stationary sources that attract emissions from mobile sources) have received renewed attention as a means by which air districts seek to curb air pollution. With the incoming Trump administration signaling its intent to limit California’s ability to regulate mobile sources, air districts will likely be incentivized to find creative ways to indirectly regulate mobile sources within their districts.
In 2024, the South Coast AQMD received U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval to include such an indirect source rule (ISR) for warehouses as part of its state implementation plan. South Coast AQMD also adopted an ISR in 2024 applicable to rail yards and has been working on a rule applicable to ports for years, which it promises to bring before its board for approval in 2025.
Perhaps observing the South Coast AQMD’s recent ISR adoptions, the Bay Area AQMD also included an ISR in its 2025 rulemaking forecast. However, exactly what such a rule for this district might look like or what source it might seek to regulate remains to be seen.
New National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 2.5 Will Likely Drive Rulemaking Activity
California’s major regional air quality districts (the Bay Area AQMD, the South Coast AQMD, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) have jurisdiction over areas considered to be in non-attainment of national standards regarding particulate matter (PM) 2.5. Areas in persistent non-attainment status risk federal sanctions and the loss of federal highway funding. In early 2024, EPA tightened the PM 2.5 standards even further. As a result, some air districts may consider rulemakings designed to reduce PM2.5 pollution within their jurisdictions. Given that mobile sources are a major contributor of this pollutant, ISR options may become even more appealing in 2025 and beyond.
Mobile Source Regulation
The Clean Air Act preempts states from adopting their own emission standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. However, Section 209 of the Clean Air Act allows California to set its own emissions standards if EPA grants a waiver from the federal preemption or EPA authorizes California to enforce its own standards despite the preemption. In the past year, CARB submitted requests for waiver or authorization for several regulations.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation – This regulation applies to trucks performing drayage operations at seaports and railyards; fleets owned by State, local, and federal government agencies; and high-priority fleets that are entities that own, operate, or direct at least one vehicle in California and that have either $50 million or more in gross annual revenue, or that own, operate, or have common ownership or control of a total of 50 or more vehicles. The regulation imposes restrictions on purchasing internal combustion engines, requires fleet owners to phase in zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) or near-ZEVs beginning in 2024, and imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements on fleet owners and operators. On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew the request for waiver and authorization. In a response letter, EPA stated that it, therefore, “considers the matter closed.”
In-Use Locomotive Standards – The regulation has four primary, interrelated components: (1) imposes restrictions on the operation of any locomotive that is “23 years or older” from the original engine build date unless the locomotive exclusively operates in zero-emission configuration within California; (2) requires railroads to make annual deposits into a “Spending Account” based on the locomotive’s emissions in California in the prior year and imposes restrictions on the use of funds in the “Spending Account”; (3) imposes idling requirements that would regulate a locomotive’s function and maintenance; and (4) imposes registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, including the requirement to annually report emissions information for non-zero emissions locomotives. On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew the request for waiver and authorization. By response letter, EPA stated it therefore “considers this matter closed.”
Amendments to the Small Off-Road Engines Regulations – The amendments include improvements to evaporative emissions certification procedures, revise the compliance testing procedure, update the evaporative emissions certification test fuel to represent commercially available gasoline, and align aspects of the regulation requirements with the corresponding federal requirements. EPA granted the authorization request on December 19, 2024.
The “Omnibus” Low NOx Regulation – The regulation establishes the next generation of exhaust emission standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM, and other emission-related requirements for new 2024 and subsequent model year on-road medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. EPA granted the authorization request on December 17, 2024.
Advanced Clean Cars II Program – The regulations amend the Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of ZEVs and amends the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent particulate matter, Nox, and hydrocarbon standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions. EPA granted the authorization request on January 6, 2025.
Amendments to California’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation – The amendments will require fleets to phase out use of the oldest and highest polluting offroad diesel vehicles in California, prohibit the addition of high-emitting vehicles to a fleet, and require the use of R99 or R100 renewable diesel in off-road diesel vehicles. EPA granted the authorization request on January 3, 2025.
If the current EPA administration does not grant the pending waiver requests, then it is unclear how EPA under the Trump administration will decide on the waiver requests. Our November 6, 2024 news alert discusses these waiver issues in more detail.
CARB also enacted the zero-emission forklift regulation on August 2, 2024. The regulation accelerates the transition towards zero-emission forklifts by restricting fleet operators/owners from owning, possessing, and operating Large Spark Ignition (LSI) forklifts starting on January 1, 2026, and requiring fleet operators to phase out Class IV LSI forklifts of any rated capacity, as well as Class V LSI Forklifts with rated capacity less than 12,000 pounds according to the compliance schedule in the Regulation. These forklifts will need to be phased out by January 1, 2038.
Cal/OSHA Developments
Cal/OSHA Lead Exposure Regulations
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) updated lead standards, which were approved on February 15, 2024, and went into effect on January 1, 2025. These apply to both general and construction worksites and replace standards that are decades old, based on data from over 40 years ago. The amended standards modify the permissible exposure limit (PEL), action level (AL), workplace hygiene practices, and medical surveillance requirements relating to lead in the workplace.
The reduction of the PEL and AL is significant; the threshold that triggers various regulatory requirements is now considerably lower. Many new industries will likely be covered. The PEL is now 10 µg/m3 (8-hour-time weighted average), an 80% reduction from the earlier PEL (50 µg/m3). The AL is now 2 µg/m3, a 93% drop from the prior AL (30 µg/m3).
Regulations for General Industry now define certain tasks as “Presumed Significant Lead Work” (PSLW). Until employers perform an employee exposure assessment, they are required to provide employees performing PSLW with interim protections.
For the construction industry, the regulations also define various “trigger tasks” levels, which assume a certain level of employee exposure. These “triggers” require protective measures for employees performing these tasks until an employee exposure assessment is completed.
Cal/OSHA Silica Emergency Temporary Standard
Cal/OSHA stated that California is experiencing a “silicosis epidemic” among artificial stone fabrication workers. In December 2023, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHB) approved the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) in response to these circumstances. The ETS intends to protect employees working with artificial and natural stone containing more than 10% crystalline silica. Additional protections apply to workers performing “high exposure trigger tasks.”
On December 19, 2024, OSHB voted unanimously to make the Silica ETS permanent. The decision is a step towards making these emergency measures permanent. The current proposal continues the protections the ETS has introduced, with some changes. These include a new medical removal subsection and updates to the medical surveillance subsection.
The proposed medical removal provisions provide protections to employees when a physician or other licensed healthcare professional (PLHCP) recommends that they be removed from a job assignment or that the job be modified to reduce exposure to RCS. The proposed updates to the medical surveillance provisions include specific medical procedures to be conducted for the required initial and periodic examinations. PLCHPs and specialists would also be required to submit certain information to the California Department of Public Health for each silica medical examination conducted.
The Office of Administrative Law has 30 days to approve or deny the proposal. We expect a decision in mid-January 2025.
Cal/OSHA Increases Staffing for Its Bureau of Investigations Unit
In August 2024, Cal/OSHA announced that it had increased staffing for its Bureau of Investigations (BOI) unit. Cal/OSHA says this would “allow BOI to tackle more cases and ensure that the most negligent of employers are held accountable.”
The BOI is responsible for investigating employee fatality and serious injury cases, and preparing and referring cases to local and state prosecutors for criminal prosecution. Cal/OSHA was criticized in early 2024 for the short-staffed status of BOI. Given the recently enhanced staffing, employers should expect that BOI investigations will likely increase in 2025.
Bird Flu
On December 18, 2024, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency for Avian influenza (H5N1) (“bird flu”) in California. On December 27, 2024, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) advised employers and healthcare professionals to look for occupational cases of bird flu. There have been no cases of human-to-human transmission in California—nearly all affected persons had exposure to infected cattle. In light of DWC’s recommendations, employers should nevertheless review Cal/OSHA’s guidance on bird flu for employers.
Water Rights, Tribal Issues, Public Lands, Endangered Species
Threatened Species Listing of Monarch Butterfly
On December 12, 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species with a special section 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The special 4(d) rule would provide very narrow exemptions to the ESA’s broad prohibition on unauthorized take for certain types of activities that may otherwise impact the species. FWS also proposed designating nearly 4,500 acres in California as critical habitat that would extend from the California Bay Area’s Marin County down the state’s western coast to Ventura County north of Los Angeles.
If finalized as proposed, this listing would stand as the largest listing decision in ESA history, affecting the entire lower forty-eight states. FWS is receiving public comment through March 12, 2025.
Central Valley Project and State Water Project
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)’s Central Valley Project (CVP), which is operated jointly with the California Department of Water Resources’ State Water Project (SWP), manages the collection, storage, and transport of many millions of acre-feet of water through the Central Valley for delivery to irrigators and municipalities and to meet state and federal ecological and species requirements. In 2018, California finalized revisions to its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta (Bay-Delta) to require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers would reach the Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement, accordingly reducing water supplies for agricultural irrigators. In 2019, the previous Trump administration responded by committing to increasing CVP water supplies for agricultural users through changes to long-term operations of the CVP, pursuant to a 2019 ESA biological opinion or “BiOp.”
These ESA changes were promptly challenged by California and environmental organizations as insufficiently protective of Bay-Delta salmon and smelt populations, habitats, and spawning activities. They were first enjoined by federal court and later remanded to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS under the Biden administration. The cases were stayed during NMFS and FWS’s reconsideration of new CVP and SWP operating rules, in favor of an interim operations plan (IOP), which was extended through December 2024 to allow for the issuance of new CVP and SWP BiOps. See March 28, 2024 Order in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Raimondo, Civ. Nos. 20-00426, -00431 (E.D. Cal.). On December 20, 2024, on the verge of another change in administration, Reclamation issued its Record of Decision for the “Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project” based on 2024 BiOps, to mixed reviews from environmentalists and water users alike. It is likely that these new “California water rules” will spark new rounds of both litigation challenges and regulatory reconsideration in 2025.
Yurok Tribe v. Klamath Water Users Association
In this appeal before the Ninth Circuit (Nos. 23-15499 and 23-15521, consolidated), the Klamath Water Users Association (KWA) and Klamath Irrigation District (KID) sought review of a 2023 federal district court decision holding that an Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) order prohibiting Reclamation from releasing stored water subject to adjudicated irrigation rights from Upper Klamath Lake to protect and restore endangered fish species was preempted by the ESA. KWA and KID had sought declaratory relief that the ESA does not authorize Reclamation to release water from Upper Klamath Lake, arguing that the case does not involve any issue of preemption, because Reclamation does not have authority under its enabling act to appropriate rights to use water in violation of Oregon law, and the ESA does not expand these Reclamation authorities. OWRD subsequently withdrew its order.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on June 12, 2024, but the court, just prior to the hearing, indicated that it perceived potential jurisdictional issues due to the OWRD withdrawal having mooted the initial challenge to its order. At oral argument, KID urged the court to certify key questions to the Oregon Supreme Court concerning Reclamation’s authority to use and control the use of water under Oregon law, arguing that Oregon’s water rights and laws governing the use and control of water in Upper Klamath Lake were established long before the ESA was enacted, that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act mandates compliance with state water law and water rights, and that controlling precedent makes clear that state law governs whether Reclamation has authority or discretion to meet its ESA obligations using stored irrigation water subject to adjudicated water rights. Therefore, these state law questions should be addressed independently of the federal question of Reclamation’s ESA obligations and their preemptive consequences. Briefing on KID’s motion for certification continued into December 2024, so a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits, or as to whether the questions will proceed for now in state or federal court, can be expected in 2025.
Water
On November 20, 2024, EPA Region 9 published in the Federal Register its Final Designation of formerly unregulated stormwater discharges from commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) properties for required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting. The designation applies to CII facilities consisting of five or more acres of impermeable surfaces (in the case of unpermitted facilities) or five or more total acres (in the case of unpermitted portions of facilities already holding a NPDES permit and no exposure certificate, and in the case of non-notice of non-applicability (NONA) covered portions of facilities with a NONA) in two watersheds in the Los Angeles County area. This expansion of stormwater regulation is a joint effort between EPA Region 9 and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Water Board prepared the corresponding draft CII General Permit and is expected to hold a public hearing on the draft permit now that EPA’s designation is final.
The incoming Trump administration may reevaluate the Final Designation and consider rescinding it, but it may take some time for new EPA staffers to address this action. In the interim, it will be critical for parties adversely affected by the Final Designation to expeditiously seek judicial review—and a stay or preliminary injunction—to protect their interests.
Additional Authors: Gary J. Smith, Patrick J. Redmond, Leticia E. Duarte, Sara M. Eddy, Gabriela Espir, Jeremy D. Faulkner, Nicole L. Garson, Ragini Gupta, Lauren M. Lankenau, Sharon Mathew, Claire S. McLeod Ruiz, Lauren M. Murvihill, and Megan V. Unger