The Digital Chamber Publishes US Blockchain Roadmap
The Digital Chamber (TDC), a trade association focused on advancing blockchain adoption and regulatory clarity, has unveiled its U.S. Blockchain Roadmap, a plan aimed at enhancing America’s leadership in blockchain technology. The roadmap emphasizes blockchain’s potential in reshaping financial systems, global trade, and digital infrastructure. It argues that blockchain development could impact the United States’ economic growth, financial sovereignty, and technological competitiveness.
The roadmap outlines several priority areas and policy recommendations. These include integrating digital assets into the nation’s financial infrastructure, protecting decentralized networks, and establishing clear regulatory frameworks. It also examines Bitcoin mining’s potential role in strengthening U.S. energy security and recommends modernizing the banking system to adapt to the evolving digital economy. Additionally, the roadmap explores blockchain’s potential applications in government operations and fiscal oversight.
PFAS Reporting Requirements Persist Amid EPA Deregulation
While the Trump Administration’s deregulatory efforts create uncertainty regarding oversight of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), EPA remains active in addressing these toxic chemicals.
Under the Biden Administration, EPA established regulatory frameworks for PFAS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (under EPCRA); and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), among others. As of today, EPA has delayed a number of these PFAS rulemakings by extending comment periods.
Importantly, in a March 12 list of 31 deregulatory actions and a memorandum revising the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives (NECI), EPA offered direction in its push to pare back regulations. Notably, EPA did not list PFAS rulemakings in this list of deregulatory targets, nor did EPA revise the Biden-era PFAS and drinking water NECIs. This suggests that actions to revise or rescind recently promulgated PFAS requirements are possibly lower on the list of deregulatory priorities. This may change.
In the meantime, the TSCA PFAS Reporting Rule remains in full force and effect and its reporting deadlines are fast approaching. The PFAS Reporting Rule was mandated by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2020 that amended TSCA section 8(a)(7). 88 Fed. Reg. 70,516 (Oct. 11, 2023). EPA later promulgated a final rule establishing the reporting period to begin on July 11, 2025, and to conclude for most businesses on January 11, 2026; some small businesses can report on or before July 11, 2026. 89 Fed. Reg. 72,336 (Sept. 5, 2024).
The TSCA rule requires manufacturers and importers of PFAS to report various data looking back twelve years to 2011. The PFAS Reporting Rule applies to manufacturers of PFAS substances and mixtures, including PFAS in byproducts and impurities. The rule also requires importers to report PFAS substances and mixtures, including articles containing PFAS (e.g. components, materials and products).
In addition to the unprecedented look-back period, the PFAS Reporting Rule requires companies to conduct a diligent inquiry into the presence of PFAS at their facilities and supply chains, assessing information that is “known or reasonably ascertainable” from upstream suppliers and downstream customers. Both internal and external inquiry is required. The rule will require thousands of businesses that have never reported under TSCA to conduct diligent inquiries of this type.
Unless or until EPA acts additionally to extend the deadlines or revise the reporting requirements of the PFAS Reporting Rule, businesses are required to comply. There is still time to gather and process the necessary information. Even amid regulatory uncertainty, businesses are encouraged to be prepared and avoid possible noncompliance risks. Also, several states have enacted or proposed reporting for PFAS in products, including some restrictions or outright prohibitions. States may also petition EPA to regulate PFAS further; some are already doing so regarding PFAS air emissions.
Businesses are urged to use the TSCA diligence and information gathering process to both collect information to comply with federal and state PFAS regulatory requirements and to establish an in-house knowledge base. Liabilities from PFAS exposures and contamination from third-party and governmental enforcement actions, distinct from reporting requirements, are expected to only amplify in the coming years.
New Mexico Is the Next State With a Proposed Heat Illness Rule
New Mexico is the next state to propose a heat exposure rule for workers. The New Mexico Environment Department has proposed a rule aimed at preventing heat-related illnesses and injuries in the workplace. The proposed rule, titled “Heat Illness and Injury Prevention,” is designed to establish comprehensive standards for occupational health and safety, particularly in environments where employees are exposed to significant heat.
Quick Hits
The proposed rule would require a plan that incorporates control measures, acclimatization, emergency medical care, and training.
The proposed rule would apply to both indoor and outdoor locations.
There will be narrow exemptions for incidental heat exposures of fifteen minutes or less within a one-hour period, emergency response operations, telework, and environments where mechanical ventilation systems maintain a heat index below 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
The New Mexico Environment Department will open a portal in early April 2025 to accept comments on the rule.
The proposed rule is similar to other state rules with requirements for a plan, training, assessments, rest breaks, and cooling areas. The tentative effective date is July 1, 2025. Public comments will be accepted beginning in April 2025.
Details on the Proposed Rule
Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan
Employers would be required to establish, implement, and maintain a written heat illness prevention plan. The proposed rule would require each plan to be available in both English and the language understood by the majority of employees. The plan would need to include procedures for heat assessment, control measures, acclimatization methods, emergency medical care, and training.
Heat Exposure Assessment
Employers would need to conduct a heat exposure assessment when the heat index exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit. This assessment would consider factors such as direct sunlight, work intensity, acclimatization, personal risk factors, and the heat-retaining effects of protective clothing.
Control Measures
The proposed rule would mandate several control measures for environments where the heat index exceeds 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Acclimatization methods: Employers would be required to provide a gradual increase in work duration in the heat for new or returning employees.
Provision of fluids: Employers would be required to provide sufficient hydrating fluids, including water and electrolyte drinks, and encourage regular fluid intake.
Regular rest breaks: Employers would be required to provide paid rest breaks, with schedules based on the heat index and work intensity.
Cooling areas: Employers would be required to establish cooling areas with shade or mechanical ventilation.
Personnel monitoring: Employers would be required to implement methods to promptly identify employees experiencing heat illness, such as regular communication, buddy systems, and self-monitoring.
Emergency Medical Care
Employers would need to ensure appropriate emergency medical care is available when the plan is in effect.
Training
Like other states with similar heat illness plans, employers would be required to provide training on environmental and personal risk factors, control measures, rest breaks, acclimatization methods, types of heat illness, and emergency procedures. Training would need to be conducted at the beginning of employment and annually thereafter.
Recordkeeping
The proposed rule would require employers to create and maintain records of acclimatization schedules, training, and heat illness incidents for at least five years.
Greenpeace Found Liable for Supporting Unlawful Protests
A jury in North Dakota recently ordered the environmental group Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million dollars in damages to a Texas-based energy company. While commentators have focused on Greenpeace’s tenuous future in the wake of the decision, the more important outcome is that the trial set an important precedent that violent protests cannot be excused as a form of free speech.
The trial centered on protests surrounding the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was the subject of months-long protests that involved violent threats, attacks, vandalism, and property destruction. In the aftermath, the company operating the pipeline, Energy Transfer, sued Greenpeace International, its US affiliate, and its financier the Greenpeace Fund for damages.
During the trial, Energy Transfer presented evidence demonstrating Greenpeace’s well-coordinated efforts to encourage and organize the protest efforts. Most notably, Greenpeace provided funding and training to the Red Warrior Society, a resistance group that led the most destructive and violent actions during the protests.
Although Greenpeace leadership testified that the group would never direct a campaign that supported violence, the evidence presented brought those statements into question. Energy Transfer pointed out that Greenpeace continued to lead supply drives for the Red Warrior Society through the middle of September 2016, more than a month after that encampment began some of its violent confrontations with law enforcement and construction workers.
As part of its coordination efforts, Greenpeace reportedly provided the protesters with $21,000 as part of a “rapid response grant,” and sent them other materials such as lockboxes which were used to help protesters tie themselves to equipment, and propane canisters that could be lit and thrown at security and construction workers.
In addition to training and funding protesters, Greenpeace spread baseless accusations about Energy Transfer as part of a bid to shut down financing for the pipeline’s construction. The group circulated statements claiming the company had “deliberately desecrated documented burial grounds” and was building the pipeline across tribal land.
In fact, the pipeline does not cross any of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s land or encroach on the tribe’s water supply. During the trial, it was also revealed that Energy Transfer had attempted to meet with the tribe to discuss their concerns before the pipeline’s construction. The tribe’s leadership refused but other tribes accepted the invitation, leading to 140 modifications to the pipeline’s route to accommodate cultural sites.
During the trial, Greenpeace attempted to downplay its role in the protest efforts. But Energy Transfer presented the jury with an email from Greenpeace USA’s executive director in 2016 to its board members saying the organization had played a “massive role” in the protest efforts “since day one.”
Throughout the months-long protests, moreover, Greenpeace was eager to claim credit for its role and raised millions of dollars spreading misleading claims about Energy Transfer and the pipeline project.
While the pipeline was eventually constructed, Energy Transfer cited the protests as the cause for a five-month construction delay. Greenpeace is finally paying the price for costing the company millions of dollars in lost profits and shareholder value.
Greenpeace has argued publicly that this case could have a chilling effect on protests and free speech, but as I wrote before the trial “it’s not Greenpeace’s speech or public positioning that the lawsuit questions—it’s the organization’s conduct.”
The jury has now spoken: perpetrators of violence and vandalism cannot avoid accountability merely by claiming it’s their First Amendment right. It’s a powerful reminder to radical environmentalists and other groups that destroy property and stoke violence in a misguided attempt to draw attention to their causes.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The National Law Review.
California Leaders Move to Support Energy Storage
Our previous post[1] covered the introduction of A.B. 303 (Addis), the “Battery Energy Safety and Accountability Act”, following a catastrophic fire at one of the world’s largest battery energy storage facilities located in Moss Landing, California, starting on January 16, 2025. As we explained, that bill, proposed as an urgency statute, would significantly curtail the authority of both local agencies and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to site new energy storage facilities and would likely result in significant adverse consequences for meeting California’s clean energy goals.
At the time A.B. 303 was introduced, several clean energy media outlets and industry groups including the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), expressed concerns with the bill as proposed, especially its failure to distinguish between the older technology and safety standards in place at the time the Moss Landing facility was developed in 2019 and those applicable to battery facilities currently under development, which use newer and safer technology and are also subject to State law requirements to prepare an Emergency Response Plan under Senate Bill (S.B.) 38 (Laird), adopted in 2023. To date, A.B. 303 has not yet received a hearing or a vote.
In the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing fire, Governor Newsom called for an investigation into the incident, which the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) subsequently initiated.[2] The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and several other agencies, including the Monterey County Health Department’s Environmental Health Bureau and the UC Cooperative Extension all conducted testing for water and soils contamination and found no significant impacts.[3] Meanwhile, the CPUC continued its effort to update General Order 167 to include standards for the maintenance and operation of storage facilities in accordance with S.B. 1383 (Hueso), adopted in 2022. These changes were adopted on March 13, 2025.
While these efforts were ongoing, little was said by the Governor or his Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), which has a dedicated Energy and Climate Unit, about the future of energy storage development in the state. Now, two months after the fire and over the course of just days, both Governor Newsom and Senator John Laird, author of SB 38 and a prominent member of the Senate and former California Secretary for Natural Resources, have made moves demonstrating their continued support for battery storage development in California.
First, on March 19, the Governor certified the first hybrid solar generation and storage facility, the Cornucopia Hybrid Project, as an Environmental Leadership Development Project (ELDP) subject to judicial streamlining pursuant to the “Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act”, A.B. 900 (2011).[4] The Act was amended in 2023 by the adoption of S.B. 149 to expand the scope of projects eligible for certification to include wind, solar and battery energy storage projects as well as other transmission, water and transportation infrastructure projects.
In his certification order,[5] Governor Newsom found that the project would “invest in the California economy, create living wage jobs and help achieve California’s renewable energy generation goals.” The certification (not to be confused with certification under the CEC’s Opt-In Certification Program pursuant to A.B. 205 (2022)) affords the project streamlined judicial review by requiring state courts to resolve any CEQA challenge (including appeals) within 270 days after filing of the certified administrative record, to the extent feasible. Since the Act’s adoption in 2011, only 24 projects have received ELDP certification,[6] yet there are indications that the program works to streamline judicial review. Last year, the Yolo County Superior Court issued its order rejecting a CEQA challenge to the Sites Reservoir project, a certified ELDP, within just 148 days.[7]
In his press release announcing the certification, the Governor reconfirmed his commitment to clean energy development as well as grid reliability, stating: “In California, we’re in the ‘how’ business – we’re moving fast to achieve our world-leading clean energy goals. By fast-tracking critical projects like this one in Fresno, we’re creating good-paying jobs, cutting pollution, and building a cleaner, more reliable energy grid to serve Californians for generations.”[8]
Two days later, on March 21, Senator Laird issued his proposed battery energy storage safety bill, S.B. 283. Intended to ensure “future BESS facilities adhere to the highest fire safety standards, protecting first responders, local communities, and the integrity of our renewable energy transition”, S.B. 283 would require that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for energy storage systems (NFPA 855[9]) apply to any facility certified by the CEC pursuant to its Opt-In Certification Program, and that the state Building Codes Standards Commission and the State Fire Marshall review and consider the most recently published edition of NFPA 855 for incorporation into the state Fire Code in the next update adopted after July 1, 2026. The bill also requires that energy storage developers consult with local fire authorities to address facility design, assess potential risks and integrate emergency response plans, and that safety inspections be conducted by local fire officials or the State Fire Marshal, at the developer’s cost, after construction and prior to operation of a storage facility. In his press release, Senator Laird also stated that “As the bill moves forward, SB 283 will be amended to prohibit the development of BESS in indoor combustible buildings.”
Meanwhile, continuing the State’s theme of progressing BESS development post-Moss Landing, on March 26, GO-Biz plans to hold a webinar to “discuss challenges and best practices in permitting BESS project” and to develop a “toolkit of resources for local jurisdictions to use when permitting renewable energy projects across the State.”[10]
While battery storage is likely to continue to remain controversial in the near term, these actions demonstrate State leadership’s commitment to continued progress towards clean energy transition goals, including battery storage. With prudent legislative action to ensure projects are designed to meet (and actually do meet) the highest safety standards available, California can continue to move towards a safer and cleaner future.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Understanding AB 303: Potential Impacts for California BESS Project Development | Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog.
[2] California investigating Moss Landing fire; proposes more battery plant safety
[3] As reported by the California Certified Organic Farmers Moss Landing Update – CCOF.org.
[4] Now codified at Public Resources Code section 21178 et seq.
[5] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Fresno-Cornucopia-certification.pdf.
[6] Judicial Streamlining – Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.
[7] Sites Reservoir project clears hurdle thanks to streamlining law | Governor of California.
[8] Governor Newsom cuts red tape to accelerate Fresno clean energy project | Governor of California.
[9] NFPA 855 is the second edition (2023) of the Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems.
[10] Join the GO-Biz Energy Unit for a webinar on March 26th, bringing together… | California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz)
Listen to this post
Potential Rollback of Biden’s Climate Policies Targets Billions in Clean Energy Projects
According to media reports, Energy Department officials are compiling a list of clean energy projects, awarded billions of dollars, that could be overturned by the Trump administration in what may become the most significant rollback of the Biden administration’s climate policies to date.
The list, requested by Trump administration officials and expected to be completed any day, includes projects funded through the Inflation Reduction Act, bipartisan infrastructure law, and regular appropriations, according to the Politico report. Projects or programs that have spent less than 45 percent of their allocated or awarded funding reportedly are subject to review.
According to the published report, the initial list of projects recommended for elimination includes:
$8 billion for hydrogen hubs;
$7 billion for carbon capture hubs;
$6.3 billion for industrial demonstrations;
$500 million for long-duration energy storage;
$133 million for the Liftoff program for accelerating new technology development; and $50 million for distributed energy programs.
While we are watching the situation closely, the Trump Administration has yet to comment on the Politico report or the specifics of such a list of targeted projects. However, the administration and Congressional Republicans already have targeted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants and funding allocated by the Biden Administration. Days ago, a Congressional committee asked interim EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for a briefing on grants and funding awarded by the agency under the Biden Administration.
If you are a private company, nonprofit or university that has received a guaranteed loan, grant, or contract that has been identified for elimination:
FIRST – Look to the four corners of the agreement with the Federal government to understand the terms that define available remedies.
SECOND – Take administrative action as directed by the agreement or other legal provisions (the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulations).
THIRD – Consider challenging it in court, while weighing the political considerations against business realities.
FOURTH – Maintain detailed documentation of the cost and time impacts associated with any modifications or terminations of agreements.
FIFTH – Communicate with your subcontractors and suppliers about potential impacts.
Additionally, it may be prudent to consider direct advocacy before Congress and the Administration, leveraging memberships in trade associations or directly engaging with elected officials.
PFAS Bans Go into Effect; Manufacturers Attempt to Push Back on Regulations
Many states have enacted or plan to enact new regulations regarding the manufacturing of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals,” because they do not easily break down in the environment and human body. For example, on January 1, 2025, both New York[1] and California[2] banned the sale of any new, not previously used, apparel and certain other products containing added PFAS, while Minnesota[3] banned broad categories of products containing PFAS. More specifically, the Minnesota statute, titled Amara’s Law, prohibits the sale or distribution of the following products if the product contains intentionally added PFAS: (1) carpets or rugs; (2) cleaning products; (3) cookware; (4) cosmetics; (5) dental floss; (6) fabric treatments; (7) juvenile products; (8) menstruation products; (9) textile furnishings; (10) ski wax; and (11) upholstered furniture. The law makes no exceptions for products in these categories, provides no extensions, even if no PFAS alternatives are available, and allows expansion to include additional products if the products contain intentionally added PFAS that are likely to harm Minnesota’s environment and natural resources. Violations of the statute can result in fines, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Other states have similar bans set to take effect over the next several years.[4]
Like many similar regulations, Amara’s Law is currently being challenged. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance (“CSA”), a national conglomerate of members who manufacture, offer, and sell cookware containing PFAS, recently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[5] CSA alleges that Amara’s Law violates the Constitution’s commerce clause and dormant commerce clause, imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, and that its disclosure requirement (which goes into effect in 2026 and requires reporting PFAS products to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) violates the First Amendment in addition to being preempted by federal trade secret law. CSA filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of Amara’s Law, which was denied February 26, 2025. CSA has until March 28, 2025, to appeal the Judgment.
Thousands of lawsuits have already been filed across the country focused on the alleged harm caused by PFAS exposure, while state regulators, such as those noted above, attempt to limit their use. Some have called the proliferation of PFAS litigation the “next asbestos,” with significant potential liability to insurers and their corporate policyholders. With similar PFAS bans set to take effect in other states in the coming years, mounting litigation surrounding the use of PFAS, and an insurance landscape that is seeing a spike in PFAS-related claims leading to new PFAS-specific exclusions in policies, all eyes will surely be tracking these hot-button topics in 2025 and beyond.
[1] NY ECL §§ 37-0121, 71-3703.
[2] CA HLTH & S §§ 108970, 108971.
[3] Minn. Stat. § 116.943.
[4] See, e.g., Colo Rev Stat §§ 25-15-601 to 25-15-605, Me Rev Stat T. 38 § 1614, RI Gen Laws § 23-18.18-1, et seq.
[5] Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, Civ. No. 0:25-cv-41, ECF No. 1.
EU CSDDD Under US Pressure: Some Insights on the PROTECT USA Act
The European Commission’s (EC) recent announcement of the Omnibus Simplification Proposals signals that it has heard the challenges and objections raised by companies affected by the new requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). But in the US, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that could impose substantial challenges to CSDDD compliance for US companies.
As a reminder, the EC proposed amendments for the implementation and transposition deadlines of the CSRD and CSDDD, as well as amending the scope and requirements of the CSRD and CSDDD. But the Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (PROTECT USA Act)[1] proposed by Senator Hagerty targets “foreign sustainability due diligence regulation” such as the CSDDD, and would prohibit US companies from being forced to comply with the CSDDD. If enacted as currently drafted, US companies will be faced with a significant conflict in complying with the PROTECT USA Act and the CSDDD.
Further, the PROTECT USA Act intends to protect US companies from any enforcement action by the EU or its member states for non-compliance with the CSDDD. Section 5(a) of the PROTECT USA Act states: “No person may take any adverse action towards an entity integral to the national interests of the United States for action or inaction related to a foreign sustainability due diligence regulation.”[2] And § 5(b) prevents U.S. federal or state courts from enforcing any judgment by a foreign court relating to any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation “unless otherwise provided by an Act of Congress.”[3]
The PROTECT USA Act could apply to a significant number of US companies, defining “an entity integral to the national interest of the United States” as “any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity that does business with any part of the Federal Government, including Federal contract awards or leases.”[4] It also includes entities:
[O]rganized under the laws of any State or territory within the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or under any Act of Congress or a foreign subsidiary of any such entity that—
(i) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the extraction or production of raw materials from the earth, including—
(I) cultivating biomass (whether or not for human consumption);
(II) exploring or producing fossil fuels;
(III) mining; and
(IV) processing any material de-rived from an activity described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) for human use or benefit;
(ii) has a primary North American Industry Classification System code or foreign equivalent associated with the manufacturing sector; or
(iii) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products;
(iv) is engaged in—
(I) the production of arms or other products integral to the national defense of the United States; or
(II) the production, mining, or processing of any critical mineral.[4]
And the PROTECT USA Act has a catch-all that will apply to any entity “the President otherwise identifies as integral to the national interests of the United States.”[5]
The PROTECT USA Act builds on opposition to the CSDDD raised during the Biden Administration and, given the Republican majorities in both the US House and Senate, advances the argument that the CSDDD challenges US sovereignty. In a February 26, 2025 bicameral letter to Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury and Kevin Hassett, the Director of the White House National Economic Council, legislators described the CSDDD as “a serious and unwarranted regulatory overreach, imposing significant economic and legal burdens on U.S. companies.”[6] Thus, the PROTECT USA Act may serve as an incentive to further limit the scope of the CSDDD.
We recently reviewed how companies should address CSRD requirements while the EC works through the Omnibus Simplification Proposals.[7] The PROTECT USA Act adds an additional layer of complexity for US companies in navigating the uncertainty of the EC’s legislative process along with the significant limits the PROTECT USA Act might present. SPB’s policy experts in the US and EU can support companies in making prudent business decisions in a rapidly changing legislative environment.
[1] https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HLA25119.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/csddd_letter_to_treasury-nec_draft_22525_zg.pdf.pdf
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/what-should-companies-do-csrd-while-they-wait-eu-make-its-mind
Executive Order Mandates Immediate Action to Accelerate Funding for Domestic Mineral Production and Processing
On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production identifying immediate actions to boost the production of critical minerals within the United States. This executive order builds on the Unleashing American Energy executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which emphasized, among other things, a priority to establish the United States’ position as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals. This executive order outlines concrete steps to facilitate domestic mineral production and processing as part of a broader strategy to enhance national security, reduce reliance on foreign mineral supplies, reduce regulatory barriers, and promote domestic job creation and industry. In addition to key measures intended to streamline permitting outlined in our post last week, this executive order mandates coordination among various federal agencies to facilitate and support private and public capital investment in domestic mineral production and processing projects. The order:
Taps DFC loan authority to advance domestic mineral production under DPA: The order delegates to each of the Secretary of Defense and the CEO of the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), in consultation with other relevant agencies, various authorities under the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate domestic production and development of strategic resources essential for advancing mineral production. Notably, the DFC is authorized to issue “loans that create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic mineral production” and to adopt related rules and regulations. The order mirrors the grant of similar authorities to the DFC CEO under the first Trump administration to support industrial base capabilities in response to the COVID-19 emergency.
Highlights domestic mineral funding opportunities under EXIM: Highlighting the existing Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative and the Make More in America Initiative, the order directs the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to release guidance for using mineral and mineral production financing tools under these programs to support domestic mineral production and lock in guaranteed access to critical minerals from oversea suppliers by securing offtake agreements of global raw mineral feedstock for domestic minerals processing.
Mandates disclosure relief to streamline funding applications: Agencies empowered to make loans, loan guarantees, grants, equity investments, or offtake agreements in connection with securing vital mineral supply chains are directed to take steps to rescind policies requiring applicants to submit disclosures required by Regulation S-K part 1300 for funding applications.
Activates other agencies to support domestic mineral production and supply chain resiliency: Other agencies are also directed to take urgent steps to support and facilitate domestic mineral production, including:
Use of the National Security Capital Forum to connect private capital with commercially viable domestic mineral production projects;
Addition of mineral production as a priority area for the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program;
Establishment of a dedicated mineral and mineral production fund using Department of Defense investment authorities to support domestic investments in mineral production;
Convening buyers of minerals and working toward an announced request for bids to supply minerals; and
Soliciting recommendations from the Small Business Administration for legislation to enhance private-public capital activities supporting small businesses in mineral production.
Additional guidance from DFC, EXIM, and other agencies regarding these programs and initiatives is expected to be issued within 30-45 days after the order was published on March 20. Hunton’s leading Agency Finance team, which regularly advices on DFC and EXIM loans and was instrumental in implementing transactions for DFC under the precedent DPA loan program, is watching these developments closely.
Canada Releases Final State of PFAS Report and Proposed Risk Management Approach
On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, on March 8, 2025, Canada published a proposed order that would add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states in its March 5, 2025, press release that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025.
State of PFAS Report
The State of PFAS Report provides a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence, and potential impacts of PFAS on the environment and human health to inform decision-making on PFAS in Canada. The term PFAS refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s definition, which is: “fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), that is, with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (–CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (–CF2–) is a PFAS.” The class of PFAS is comprised of substances meeting this definition. ECCC states that the definition captures substances with a wide range of structures and properties, from discrete chemicals, such as perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonic acids, and fluorotelomer alcohols, to side-chain fluorinated polymers, perfluoropolyethers, and fluoropolymers. According to ECCC, some PFAS on the market also possess structural attributes other than perfluoroalkyl chains (for example, inclusion of ether linkages or chlorine atoms in the fluorinated hydrocarbon chains).
The State of PFAS Report notes that there is evidence to suggest that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles when compared with other PFAS in the class. ECCC defines fluoropolymers as “polymers made by polymerization or copolymerization of olefinic monomers (at least 1 of which contains fluorine bonded to 1 or both of the olefinic carbon atoms) to form a carbon-only polymer backbone with fluorine atoms directly bonded to it.” According to ECCC, given information suggesting their differences from the other PFAS in the class, additional work on fluoropolymers is warranted. ECCC does not address PFAS meeting the definition of fluoropolymers within the State of PFAS Report. ECCC plans to consider them in a separate assessment.
According to the State of PFAS Report, the following is known on the basis of current information:
The broad use of PFAS, their transport in the environment, and their ubiquitous presence have resulted in continuous environmental and human exposure to multiple PFAS, a finding that is supported by both environmental monitoring and human biomonitoring studies, including higher exposures in certain human subpopulations;
Given that PFAS are extremely persistent and have a broad range of uses leading to continued releases to the environment, the amount of PFAS in the environment is expected to increase;
Exposure to well-studied PFAS can affect multiple systems and organs in both humans and wildlife. Recent information demonstrates that effects on human health occur at lower levels than indicated by previous studies;
Some well-studied PFAS have demonstrated the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in food webs to an extent that can cause adverse effects in biota, even at low environmental concentrations; and
Potential for cumulative exposure and effects are important considerations as most humans and wildlife exposures occur to unknown mixtures of PFAS.
On the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC states that it concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(a) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity. ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, does not meet the criteria under CEPA Section 64(b), however, as these substances are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
According to the State of PFAS Report, on the basis of what is known about well-studied PFAS and the potential for other PFAS to behave similarly, and on the expectation that combined exposures to multiple PFAS increase the likelihood of detrimental impacts, ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets the criteria under CEPA Section 64(c) as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
ECCC therefore concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meets one or more of the criteria set out in CEPA Section 64.
According to the State of PFAS Report, well-studied PFAS meet the persistence criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. Based on available information and structural similarities, ECCC expects that other substances within the class of PFAS are also highly persistent or transform to persistent PFAS. ECCC states that it therefore determines that the class of PFAS meets the persistence criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA. ECCC notes that given that fluoropolymers have been excluded from this assessment, they are also excluded from this determination with regard to the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
ECCC states that there is a high concern identified for the biomagnification (BMF) and trophic magnification (TMF) potential of well-studied PFAS in air-breathing organisms; the numeric criteria for bioaccumulation, outlined in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations, however, are based on bioaccumulation data for freshwater aquatic species that do not account for biomagnification potential. Therefore, application of the criteria would not reflect the concern for dietary-based biomagnification, the primary route of food web exposure identified for well-studied PFAS. As a result, according to ECCC, the bioaccumulation potential of PFAS cannot reasonably be determined according to the regulatory criteria set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
Proposed Risk Management Approach
ECCC concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, meet the criteria under CEPA Sections 64(a) and (c), as these substances are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have immediate or long-term harmful effects on the environment or its biological diversity, and that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
For the purpose of CEPA Section 77(6)(c)(i), ECCC proposes the following new risk management actions through a phased prohibition under CEPA:
Phase 1: Prohibition of the use of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not currently regulated in firefighting foams, due to high potential for environmental and human exposure.
Phase 2: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, not needed for the protection of health, safety, or the environment, which includes consumer applications. ECCC states that prioritization of uses for prohibition is based on, and will take into account, costs and benefits, availability of suitable alternatives, and other socio-economic considerations. Proposed uses to be regulated in Phase 2 include:
Cosmetics;
Natural health products and non-prescription drugs;
Food packaging materials, food additives, and non-industrial food contact products such as paper plates, bowls, and cups;
Paint and coating, adhesive and sealant, and other building materials available to consumers;
Consumer mixtures such as cleaning products, waxes, and polishes;
Textile uses (including in personal protective equipment (PPE) such as firefighting turnout gear); and
Ski waxes.
Phase 3: Prohibition of the uses of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, requiring further evaluation of the role of PFAS for which currently there may not be feasible alternatives and taking into consideration socio-economic factors, including:
Fluorinated gas applications;
Prescription drugs (human and veterinary);
Medical devices;
Industrial food contact materials;
Industrial sectors such as mining and petroleum; and
Transport and military applications.
ECCC states that at each phase of risk management it will consider exemptions, when necessary, with attention to feasible alternatives and socio-economic factors. To inform ECCC’s risk management decision-making, information on the following topics should be provided by May 7, 2025):
Availability of alternatives to PFAS, or lack thereof, in products and applications in which they are currently used;
Estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives to PFAS, including any challenges;
Socio-economic impacts of replacing PFAS, including costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement; and
Quantities and concentrations of PFAS (including Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®), units of measurement, and applications) in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already provided through the July 27, 2024, Section 71 notice).
Commentary
Canada’s release of the State of PFAS Report, proposed risk management approach, and proposed order to add PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1 follows soon after the January 29, 2025, deadline for mandatory reporting for 312 PFAS. In its July 27, 2024, Canada Gazette notice, Canada stated that it required information for the purpose of assessing whether the 312 PFAS listed in the notice “are toxic or are capable of becoming toxic, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control the listed substances.” The March 8, 2025, proposed order acknowledges that “[t]he annual quantity of PFAS used in Canada is unknown, as the information required to estimate this parameter (for example type and concentrations of PFAS in products available to consumers and in commercial and industrial applications) was not identified at the time of this analysis.” Canada states that it anticipates that the mandatory survey will “provide insight on annual quantities of PFAS used in Canada,” but it may be more likely that the survey will highlight the complexity of the supply chain and the difficulty in obtaining information from suppliers.
Stakeholders should carefully review the proposed risk management approach. Canada requests information on the availability of PFAS alternatives, the estimated timeframe to transition to alternatives, the costs and feasibility of elimination or replacement, and the quantities and concentrations of PFAS in products manufactured in, imported into, and sold in Canada (if not already reported through the mandatory survey). It is unlikely many entities will volunteer such specific information on PFAS in their products and companies that were not subject to the mandatory survey may not know. Yet without evidence on the critical use of PFAS in products and the lack of alternatives, Canada may begin prohibiting uses.
Most agree that ultimately the proposal will succeed, and PFAS will be deemed CEPA toxic and listed on Part 2 of CEPA Schedule 1. Given the PFAS risk evaluations of many other authoritative bodies, it is more likely than not that ECCC’s scientific determination is defensible. That the proposal seeks to exempt fluoropolymers is noteworthy, however, and stakeholders may wish to support the exemption.
EPA Provides Update on Status of TSCA Risk Management Rule for TCE
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided an update on the effective date of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) final risk management rule for trichloroethylene (TCE). As reported in our January 13, 2025, memorandum, on December 17, 2024, EPA issued a final rule prohibiting all uses of TCE, most of which would be prohibited within one year, including TCE manufacture and processing for most commercial and all consumer products. As reported in our January 30, 2025, blog item, EPA delayed the January 16, 2025, effective date to March 21, 2025. EPA notes in its March 24, 2025, announcement that it received multiple petitions for review of the final rule. On January 13, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay temporarily the rule’s effective date. The petitions were then consolidated by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit issued a January 16, 2025, order leaving the temporary stay of the effective date in place pending briefing on whether the temporary stay of the effective date should remain in effect. EPA notes that because of the court decisions, the TCE rule never went into effect and is therefore also covered by the terms of President Trump’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum. EPA states that it expects to publish soon a Federal Register notice further postponing the effective date of all the requirements associated with TSCA Section 6(g) exemptions in the final TCE rule for 90 days until June 20, 2025, pending judicial review.
Additionally, EPA asked the court for more time to determine next steps and to extend the deadline to respond to the stay for another 60 days. EPA awaits the court’s response and will provide more information as it becomes available.
President Trump Issues Executive Order to Increase American Mineral Production
On March 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order calling for immediate measures to increase American mineral production. The order outlines several initiatives to streamline permitting processes and prioritize domestic mineral production projects. Some of the key implications for project permitting and development are summarized below. Additional provisions intended to accelerate private and public capital investment in mineral production and processing projects will be discussed in a separate blog post.
Identification of Priority Minerals: The order prioritizes the production of the following minerals: gold, uranium, copper, potash, and the “critical materials” currently defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1606(a)(3). The order also states that the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC) may identify additional elements, compounds, or materials for prioritization.
Priority Projects: The heads of agencies “involved in the permitting of mineral production in the United States” have been instructed to provide to NEDC within 10 days “a list of all mineral production projects for which a plan of operations, a permit application, or other application for approval has been submitted to such agency.”
The agency heads and NEDC have been instructed within an additional 10 days to “identify priority projects that can be immediately approved or for which permits can be immediately issued, and take all necessary or appropriate actions within the agency’s authority to expedite and issue the relevant permits or approvals.”
Federal Land Use for Mineral Projects: The Secretary of the Interior has been instructed to “identify and provide … a list of all Federal lands known to hold mineral deposits and reserves” within 10 days and to “prioritize mineral production and mining related purposes as the primary land uses in these areas, consistent with applicable law.”
The order also states that “[l]and use plans under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act shall provide for mineral production and ancillary uses, and be amended or revised as necessary, to support the intent of this order.”
A copy of the Executive Order is available here.