Tax – Page 13 – Law Ivy

The Guidance Has Arrived! More Information from the IRS on ACA Forms 1095-B and 1095-C

Takeaways

Employers may post a notice on their website instead of automatically furnishing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to all full-time employees. The first due date for such a notice is March 3 for 2024 forms, and the notice must remain accessible until October 15.

Madam Policy: Alice Lin, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, US Department of the Treasury: Insights From an IRA and Tax Policy Maven {Podcast}

Tax policy expert and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs (Tax & Budget) at the US Department of the Treasury, Alice Lin joins Madam Policy host Dee Martin to discuss her journey from being a senior tax policy advisor in Congress to lead tax expert at Treasury. From helping develop the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) during her time on the House Ways and Means Committee to working on implementation as a senior tax policy advisor for the Senate Finance Committee to helping publish over 95 pieces of guidance on the IRA at Treasury, Alice shares her view on the future of the IRA and reconciliation. Want to hear how Alice’s experience shadowing a congressional district office in high school put her on the path of public service? Listen now!

IRS Issues Guidance on Recent Relief from Health Coverage Reporting to Individuals

In December 2024, the Paperwork Burden Reduction Act (“PBRA”) was signed into law, providing, among other things, for an alternative manner for employers and other reporting entities to satisfy their obligations with respect to furnishing IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to individuals. Under the PBRA, beginning with the forms for the 2024 calendar (due March 3, 2025), a reporting entity may forego automatically furnishing the forms to individuals if certain notice requirements are satisfied. In particular, in lieu of automatically furnishing the forms, the PBRA allows a reporting entity to post a clear, conspicuous, and accessible notice, stating that individuals may receive a copy of the forms upon request (the “Replacement Notice”).
However, the PBRA did not contain specifics as to how to satisfy the Replacement Notice requirement. On February 21, 2025, the IRS issued new guidance, IRS Notice 2025-15, which helps to clarify the Replacement Notice requirement. Notice 2025-15 provides that a reporting entity may satisfy the Replacement Notice requirement by complying with existing regulations regarding a similar replacement notice procedures for Form 1094-B. Based on those existing regulations and Notice 2025-15:

The Replacement Notice must be posted on the reporting entity’s website, in an area reasonably accessible to all responsible individuals (e.g., current and former employees), accompanied by an email address and a physical address to make requests and a telephone number for any questions.
The Replacement Notice must be written in plain, non-technical terms in a font-size large enough to draw attention.
The Replacement Notice must be posted by the due date for furnishing the 1095-B or 1095-C, including the automatic 30-day extension, if applicable. For example, for 2024 Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, the Notice must be posted by March 3, 2025.
The Replacement Notice must be retained in the same place on the website through October 15 of the year following the calendar year to which the Replacement Notice relates.
The employer must furnish the Form 1095-B or 1095-C to a requesting responsible individual within 30 days of the date the request is received, but not earlier than January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return was required, and the Form may be provided electronically if the requesting individual consents.

Takeaway
The alternative manner of furnishing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C will be an attractive option for many employers looking to eliminate paper mailers, and reduce printing and mailing costs and burden. This can be a viable option as long as all of the requirements are met regarding the Replacement Notice and the employer has procedures in place to the timely furnish the forms when requested by a responsible individual. However, employers should keep in mind that certain states have their own guidelines requiring ACA-like written statements, and, if an employer is subject to any such state requirements, they may need to continue to provide paper forms via mail.

Quarterly Sanctions Update | Q4 2024 / Q1 2025

What’s New? The European Union and the United Kingdom remain committed “to keep up the pressure on the Kremlin” by way of imposing further sanctions as Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine enters the fourth year. Within a course of the last three months, the EU adopted two new sanctions packages, with new restrictions ranging from asset freezes imposed on over a hundred of individuals, companies and vessels to banning imports of aluminum originating in Russia. The United Kingdom followed the European Union’s suit, imposing new sanctions as recently as February 24, 2025.
US Policy Changes. Stay ahead of US law and policy changes, including shifting restrictive trade measures under the current administration, with our dedicated resource center available here.
Clarifying the Rules. The European Commission issued a series of long-awaited clarifications on the ‘best efforts’ and ‘no re-export to Russia’ clause requirements. The UK Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) also provided new guidance on ‘no Russia’ clauses, highlighting their role in due diligence best practices.
Expanding Sanctions Reporting. In the United Kingdom, a new group of companies, including insolvency practitioners, letting agents and art market participants, now fall under the reporting requirements relating to Russia sanctions.
Easing Pressure on Syria. The EU agreed to suspend certain sanctions against Syria following the collapse of President Assad’s regime in December 2024. The United Kingdom has announced its willingness to implement similar measures on February 13, 2025.
Click here to read the full Update.

Broadband Grants Are Still Taxable Income. Will the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act Finally Fix It?

In March 2022, we published a blog post explaining that broadband grants are apparently subject to federal income taxation. Three years later, and with $42.5 billion in BEAD grants on the verge of disbursement, nothing has changed.
As discussed in 2022, the taxability of broadband grants seems to be an unplanned quirk of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to that, broadband grants were generally exempt from taxation based on a favorable IRS interpretation of Section 118 of the tax code. But the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended Section 118 to the effect that “contributions to capital” (including grants) made from governmental or civic groups to a corporation are taxable as gross income.
Recent recipients of state and federal broadband grants are already struggling with this. Crucially, the tax bill applies to grants used to cover front-end costs relating to construction of a broadband network, with taxes likely due on the grant before revenues ramp up. If a company receives $50 million in grant funds in 2024 to construct a rural broadband network, the company would need to pay $10 million in taxes on the grant (give or take) in 2025. The very substantial tax bill would come due while the network developer is still building up operations, and may in fact threaten the operational feasibility of the entire project.
Bipartisan legislation has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years to address this issue, to no avail. But on February 24, a bipartisan group of Senators announced the re-introduction of the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act, with such varied supporters as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL). (Notably, the Act would apply to amounts received in taxable years ending after March 11, 2021.)
Broadband providers have reason to be optimistic that the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act will finally be enacted this session. But until that occurs, it would be prudent to set aside funds to cover the tax bill associated with broadband grants.

Florida Appellate Court Rules Hookah Products are Taxable OTP

The First District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that hookah products are “loose tobacco suitable for smoking” and therefore taxable as Other Tobacco Products (OTP) under Florida law. The hookah products in question are made from tobacco leaves combined with a binding mixture.
In the 2-1 decision, the majority opinion claimed the statutory phrase is unambiguous while focusing on the common understanding of what “smoking” means, the physical state of the tobacco leaves in hookah products, and the ultimate consumption of nicotine during use.
The dissenting opinion took a more technical approach to defining “smoking.” The dissent reasoned that for a product to qualify as “loose tobacco suitable for smoking,” the tobacco itself must be ignited—a position consistent with precedent from other states. While acknowledging the Florida Legislature likely intended to include hookah products under the tax, the dissent argued that tax statutes must be narrowly construed, and courts should not expand statutory language to align with presumed legislative intent.
The full opinion is available here.
This ruling represents a significant shift in interpreting the relevant statutory language. Businesses operating in the tobacco product market should carefully review this decision to determine how it might affect their products and practices under current regulations.

The EU Suspends Certain Sanctions on Syria to Support Economic Stabilization, Political Transition, and Reconstruction

To encourage democratic development and achieve a peaceful and inclusive political transition, and to aid the swift reconstruction and economic recovery of the country and facilitate its eventual reincorporation into the global financial system, the European Council decided yesterday to suspend with immediate effect a number of sanctions and restrictive measures that had targeted key sectors of the Syrian economy, including its banking, energy, and transport sectors.
In this article, we summarize the suspensions and consider the positive change that they may foreshadow for all Syrians, in the country and diaspora.
Suspended Sanctions/Restrictive Measures
The five specific actions that the European Council took following a meeting yesterday in Brussels are as follows:

Suspending sectoral measures in the energy (oil, gas, and electricity) and transport sectors;
Removing five entities (Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Industrial Bank, Popular Credit Bank, Saving Bank, and Syrian Arab Airlines) from the list of those subject to asset freezes, and allowing financial resources to be made available to the Syrian Central Bank;
Introducing exemptions to the prohibition on banking relations between Syrian banks and financial institutions in EU member states to permit transactions related to the energy and transport sectors and those necessary for reconstruction purposes;
Extending indefinitely the existing exemption for transactions for humanitarian purposes; and
Introducing an exemption to the prohibition on the export of luxury goods to Syria for personal usage.

The European Council announced that it will continuously monitor the situation in Syria to assess whether the suspensions remain appropriate and/or whether further sanctions and restrictive measures could be suspended.
Additional Considerations
While many commentators will champion the deferral of sweeping sectoral sanctions because of the unintended negative consequences that they can have, such as impeding economic stability and denying the ordinary person access to essential services such as electricity, water, healthcare and education, the European Council has seen fit to maintain other important sanctions and restrictive measures that were imposed during the previous regime, including those related to:

Arms trafficking;
Chemical weaponry;
Dual-use goods;
Equipment misused for internal repression;
Narcotics smuggling;
Software misused for interception and surveillance; and
Trade of Syrian cultural heritage items.

However, the EU’s stated goal when it enacted these sanctions was to protect the civilian population from the previous regime. Now that Syria is under new leadership, its people have the opportunity to earn a wind-down of all remaining sanctions and restrictive measures, and for its war-torn economy to benefit from resurgent EU-Syria economic relations and trade flows.

Powering the Digital Future: Navigating the Nuclear Option for Data Centers

Key Points:

Nuclear energy is well suited to meet the demands of AI data centers and data center customers have multiple options for nuclear power integration, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) vs. full-sized units, on-site vs. off-site generation, and new construction vs. reactivating existing facilities – each with distinct trade-offs in terms of cost, scale, and implementation complexity.
Potential developers will need to navigate a welter of state and federal regulations, statues and tariffs regarding grid interconnection, utility rights, and behind-the-meter arrangements. Current rules were not designed for large-scale, single-customer nuclear generation facilities.
We await key developments stemming from:

FERC’s Show Cause Proceeding: There is a 30-day deadline for PJM and PJM Transmission owners to defend why the current tariff is just or propose changes to remedy concerns on reliability impacts and cost causation.
Talen’s petition for review in review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding FERC’s rejection of the Amazon/Pennsylvania connection agreement
Consolidated proceedings

Commissioner-led Technical Conference on Large Loads Co-Located at Generating Facilities (Docket No. AD24-11-000)
Constellation complaint (EL25-20-000)

These will help establish “rules of the road” for co-location arrangements in PJM territory

Modern data centers are the foundation of our information society and now use artificial intelligence to generate new forms of machine intelligence and learning – though at the cost of considerable energy consumption. Their energy demand outstrips the ability of existing generation and transmission systems to meet that demand, making nuclear energy particularly well-suited to supply the shortfall given its base load (round-the-clock) generation profile, low fuel cost and insulation from carbon emissions concerns. Powering data centers with purpose-built, reactivated, or newly-completed nuclear generation is an attractive way to accelerate power supply to meet the needs of the AI economy.
The path for powering data centers with nuclear energy depends on multiple factors including whether the power will come from:

Full-sized units or a series of small modular reactors (“SMRs”).
Existing nuclear units that are already connected to the grid or new nuclear units to be constructed off site.
Nuclear power wheeled to the data center through the grid or new nuclear units to be constructed at or adjacent to the data center site.

The Electric Grid
More than 65 individual balancing authorities manage the United States electric grid, and most are either regional transmission organizations or large investor-owned or publicly-owned power utilities. Many smaller utilities, electric cooperatives, and municipal power systems operate behind those larger balancing authorities.
The commercial and operational terms by which new nuclear capacity will be integrated onto the grid will depend on the laws, regulations and tariffs that apply to each of these entities. This is true even for on-site or ‘behind the meter’ nuclear generation, since connecting data centers to the grid is typically required for emergency or standby generation, moment to moment load balancing, and the export of excess power when power consumption at the data center drops. The costs of operating without a robust grid connection can be quite expensive considering the cost of building and maintaining high-capacity battery or gas-fired generation back up.
Full-Sized Units vs. SMR
Data center developers are increasingly viewing SMRs as an attractive alternative to traditional large-scale nuclear reactors for powering their facilities considering their automatic or ‘walk-away’ safety features, their scalability (300 MW or less per unit vs. approximately 1,000 MW per full-scale unit), and the ability of SMR reactor units to be manufactured in factories and transported fully assembled to their final location for installation.
But substantively, the costs and benefits of the two technologies are closely balanced since, like SMRs, today’s full-scale reactors have comparable walk-away safety features and key components can be built in a series of modules on factory floors. Both SMRs and full-sized units require significant on-site ‘stick built’ construction for balance-of-plant equipment (including steam turbines, condensers, water cooling systems, switchyards, and control, maintenance and administration facilities) as well as site-specific NRC licensing and environmental permitting. Neither represents a true plug-and-play solution. In addition, full-scale units have significant economies of scale in the form of lower per-unit staffing and operating cost and produce less high-level waste for future disposal. Outside of the United States, there have been a number of successful recent projects to build new, full-scale reactors.
In short, SMRs represent nuclear capacity that data center developers can install in smaller increments reducing financial risk (capital costs) and time to start up, while creating the redundancy inherent in multiple units that can produce energy independently of each other. Full-scale reactors have significant operating economies, but in a single generating package.

SMRs represent nuclear capacity that data center developers can install in smaller increments reducing financial risk (capital costs) and time to start up, while creating the redundancy inherent in multiple units that can produce energy independently of each other. Full-scale reactors have significant operating economies, but in a single generating package.

On-Site Nuclear
Locating nuclear capacity on data center sites can create significant cost and time saving if major transmission upgrades can be avoided. But the savings may evaporate if for operational requirements grid connectivity must still match the nuclear facility’s total output or the data center’s peak power needs. These requirements include maintaining reliability standards, managing excess power, balancing loads, or meeting the data center’s full power demands. Where robust standby transmission access is required, the same transmission-related regulatory and construction issues will arise with on-site generation as with generation located elsewhere on the grid. In those cases, the primary operating advantage of on-site nuclear generation, or other onsite generation, may be accelerating availability of capacity or insulation from the effects of curtailments of service or loss-of-load (“LOA”) events on the grid.
Completing or Recommissioning Existing Units
As we will discuss with more depth in an upcoming installment of our “Going Nuclear” series, completing or restarting existing but non-operating units is currently being considered for multiple plants including the Palisades Unit, the Bellefonte Units, Three Mile Island Unit 2, and V. C. Summer Units 2 and 3. Completions and restarts leverage investments already made) and transmission interconnectivity already in place. Assuming land use patterns and the constraints of nuclear exclusion zones would support doing so, building new data centers alongside such completions and restarts can be a powerful strategy for delivering new capacity quickly.
Behind the Meter
State statutes and regulations generally allow customers to build and operate their own generation. But where that generation is connected to the grid (i.e., behind a utility meter) it may fall under the provisions of state distribution energy resources (DER) legislation that typically were drafted for smaller solar and renewable projects and prohibit large behind the meter installation. These caps, however, are not the last word, and can be removed or waived especially if the incumbent utility agrees.
Some jurisdictions may prohibit interconnection behind the meter facilities that do not sell their capacity and energy to the grid, and where the facility will be located inside an RTO or ISO, FERC may have jurisdiction over interconnection. FERC recently rejected an agreement to power an Amazon data center in Pennsylvania through a direct connection with an adjacent operating nuclear station based on the potential impact taking existing nuclear generation out of PJM’s constrained capacity markets.
FERC is also considering a request by Constellation Energy to require PJM to adopt tariff provisions to support co-located or directly connected nuclear and other generation while addressing concerns about effects on reliability and rate payer costs.
Off-Site New Nuclear
If a data center plans to purchase power from an offsite nuclear unit, a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the owner and operator of the unit will determine the terms of sale. If the unit will operate in a competitive retail market, then the PPA delivery will take place under the open access transmission tariff (OATT) of the resident transmission operator, and retail power delivery tariffs of the local distribution entity. However, the structure of most deregulated markets involves all generation being sold into a single market, with contracts for differences giving end-users the economic benefit of their PPA transactions. A data center customer will want some assurance that service will not be curtailed so long as the nuclear capacity it is providing is online and supplying power to the grid. The terms of existing tariffs should not be considered to be the last word on what is possible. It may be possible to negotiate and obtain regulatory approval for contractual terms or special tariff provisions tailored to the specific transaction.

A data center customer will want some assurance that service will not be curtailed so long as the nuclear capacity it is providing is online and supplying power to the grid.

State Regulation: Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCNs”), Territorial Assignment and Retail Tariffs
Most states require electric generation developers to obtain some form of CPCN to construct systems sized at 75-85 MW or more, and nuclear construction would almost certainly require certification under those statutes. These requirements often apply whether or not the new unit is considered self-generation, i.e., it is owned by and serves only the data center owner. These statutes were not typically drafted with single customer, large-scale generation in mind, and so adapting a new nuclear project under their terms may require some creativity.
State Regulation
Vertically Integrated Markets: If the state follows a vertically integrated utility service model (i.e., non-deregulated), then the local utility will likely have territorial service rights which extend to generation construction. This may allow the utility to block the construction of new generation to serve a customer within its service territory, especially if it is to be owned by an entity other than the data center and its customers. However, there can be exceptions. Some states have statutes or tariffs that allow industrial choice, distribution energy resources (DER), or voluntary renewable energy projects (“VREPs”). Otherwise, regulatory support from the incumbent utility and a one-off agreement may be needed with to site new nuclear generation. Further , the incumbent utility’s public service commission will need to approve, and such agreement would be a contractual exception to the utility’s generally applicable tariffs.
State Regulation: Retail Standby Service
A data center that is connected to the grid for backup power purposes will be a retail customer of the incumbent electric utility. The upside of being a retail tariff customer is that the data center can use its grid connection to buy standby power to deal with fluctuations in its energy demand (and to sell excess power onto the grid when necessary). But the presence of a retail meter will make the data center subject to the costs built into its retail tariff. The tariff may be out of alignment with the standby nature of the service being purchased and may include services that do not benefit the data center owner (e.g., cost for renewable portfolio standards, demand side management (DSM) programs, and other social or environmental costs). Depending on the tariffs, the data center may be subject to curtailment in times of system emergency even if the nuclear plant is producing sufficient power to meet its demands.
Looking Ahead
Nuclear power presents a compelling solution for meeting the exponentially growing energy demands of modern data centers, particularly those supporting AI operations. However, successful implementation requires careful navigation of multiple regulatory and licensing complexities.
Whether choosing SMRs or full-scale reactors, data center operators must carefully evaluate their specific needs against various factors: initial capital costs, operational economies, regulatory requirements and uncertainties, and grid integration challenges. The decision between on-site and off-site generation, or whether to participate in recommissioning existing facilities, requires thorough analysis of federal, regional, and local regulations, transmission infrastructure, and operational requirements.

FERC Moves Forward Quickly on Generator Co-Location With Large Loads

During last week’s 20 February 2025 open meeting, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) initiated a show cause proceeding, directing grid operator PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and PJM’s transmission-owning utilities (Transmission Owners) to address the need for tariff changes to govern rates, terms, and service conditions for co-location arrangements.1 The order is likely to have implications nationwide given the growth of data centers and other large loads seeking dedicated energy sources. Co-location, as defined by the order, is a configuration through which end-use customer load is physically connected to the facilities of an existing or planned generator on the interconnection customer’s side of the point of interconnection to the interstate electric grid.2 Data centers and other large loads may use co-location arrangements with various configurations, including grid connections, to arrange for energy supplies.
Chairman Mark Christie’s remarks during the open meeting recognized FERC action to be imperative “because there’s not only billions of dollars of investment waiting for us to act… issues of reliability are directly implicated.”3 He also added, “[t]here’s no question a key utility principle is serve all customers… but [that] has to be done in a way that’s fair and [consistent with] cost causation.”4
The show cause order is directed at PJM following several co-location-related disputes involving entities in PJM. PJM is the largest grid operator in the nation, covering 13 states and the District of Columbia, and is home to the largest concentration of data centers in the nation. PJM is expecting 30 gigawatts of peak load to be added over the next five years.5
While the show cause proceeding focuses on the PJM region, industry is expected to track these developments closely given the broad scope of issues to be addressed. FERC’s decisions here will likely shape the federal regulatory framework governing co-location of data centers and other large loads in those regions or, at a minimum, guide the development of co-location rules adopted by other regional grid operators.
The expansive scope of the show cause proceeding covers issues concerning federal-state jurisdiction, operational reliability of the electric grid, generation resource adequacy, and interconnection study processes, including, e.g.:

Whether modifications to the tariff, market rules, or interconnection procedures and agreements would be necessary to address the identified issues of jurisdiction, cost causation, the beneficiary pays principle, reliability, and resource adequacy;
Whether and to what extent different co-location configurations benefit from or rely upon the transmission system, ancillary services, and black start services;
Whether and to what extent different co-location arrangements impose costs on the transmission system;
Whether co-located load configurations should be required to take transmission service, such as Network Integration Transmission Service, Point-to-Point Transmission Service, pay for ancillary services even if not taking traditional transmission service, or take a new form of transmission service;
Whether PJM’s necessary study process for proposed interconnections adequately addresses potential impacts or capabilities of co-location arrangements;
Whether it would be appropriate to establish an interconnection study process outside of PJM’s interconnection queue process for newly interconnecting co-location arrangements that do not exchange power with the transmission system and do not require network upgrades;
Whether revisions to PJM’s capacity market rules would be necessary to appropriately reflect the unique physical and operational characteristics of the co-location arrangement; and
Whether the PJM planning process should be modified to plan for and address resource adequacy impacts of co-location arrangements, particularly whether PJM should consider changes to its load forecasting methods.6

Although FERC has not committed to a date by which it will issue an order in the show cause proceeding, a press release issued 21 February 2025 commits that the agency will act as “quickly… as feasible,”7 and, during the open meeting, the four Commissioners participating in the decision pledged to act quickly. Further, the show cause order itself sets a fast-moving schedule, directing PJM and the Transmission Owners to submit their responses within 30 days, by 24 March 2025, and interested entities to submit comments 30 days later, by 23 April 2025.8 The order also consolidates the show cause proceeding with two other dockets,9 providing a supplement to the record upon which to take action in the show cause proceeding.
On the same day that FERC initiated the show cause proceeding, it also announced that it will convene a two-day Commissioner-led technical conference in Docket No. AD25-7-000 to address resource adequacy issues in regional transmission organization and independent system operator regions, to be held at FERC on 4 June 2025 and 5 June 2025.
The energy regulatory landscape is rapidly changing. The firm is closely monitoring these developments to assist its clients in navigating these evolving laws, regulations, and policies. Members of our Energy Storage and Distributed Resources practice group can assist in better understanding the regulatory issues surrounding the co-location of large loads with generation facilities, as well as the specific regulatory challenges facing data centers’ access to reliable electricity supplies.

Footnotes

1 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 190 FERC ¶ 61,115 (2025) (Show Cause Order).
2 Id. at P 3.
3 Chairman Mark Christie, Comments at FERC’s February 2025 Open Meeting (Feb. 20, 2025) (Chairman Christie Comments) (official transcript forthcoming).
4 Id.
5 Commissioner David Rosner, Comments at FERC’s February 2025 Open Meeting (Feb. 20, 2025); see also Chairman Christie Comments (“We all know that the expansion of data centers, especially AI-driven data centers, is having a tremendous impact on load forecasts. We’re seeing load forecasts that as a state regulator for a long time I never thought were possible. We are seeing load forecasts in the double digits, and we have to meet those load forecasts and we have to meet it with generation.”).
6 See Show Cause Order at P 88.
7 FERC Chairman Issues Statement on Review of Issues Associated with the Co-Location of Large Loads at Generating Facilities, FERC (Feb. 21, 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-chairman-issues-statement-review-issues-associated-co-location-large-loads.
8 Show Cause Order at PP 2, 87.
9 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing of Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Docket No. EL25-20-000 (filed Nov. 22, 2024); Large Loads Co-Located at Generating Facilities, Notice of Commissioner-Led Technical Conference, Docket No. AD24-11-000 (issued Aug. 2, 2024); see also FERC to Hold Commissioner-Led Technical Conference to Discuss Co-location of Large-Load Customers with Generating Facilities, K&L GATES HUB (Aug. 7, 2024), https://natlawreview.com/article/ferc-hold-commissioner-led-technical-conference-discuss-co-location-large-load.

New Section 232 Investigation on Imports of Copper, Scrap Copper and Derivative Products

On February 25, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to initiate an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) to determine whether imports of copper, scrap copper and copper derivative products threaten to impair national security. This investigation could impact copper availability in the U.S. in the short term, while potentially leading to new investments in U.S. smelting long-term.
In the order, the President noted that a single foreign producer controls over 50% of global copper smelting capacity and owns four of the top five largest refining facilities. U.S. smelting and refining capacity lags significantly behind despite ample domestic copper reserves.
The investigation will focus on the effects on national security of imports of copper in all forms, including but not limited to: (1) raw mined copper; (2) copper concentrates; (3) refined copper; (4) copper alloys; (5) scrap copper; and (6) derivative products. For the investigation, the Secretary will assess the factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1862(d) such as domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements, the capacity of domestic industries to meet such requirements, and the availability of the resources essential to the national defense. In addition to those statutory factors, the executive order further directs the Secretary to evaluate the following nine (9) factors:

The current and projected demand for copper in United States defense, energy and critical infrastructure sectors;
The extent to which domestic production, smelting, refining and recycling can meet demand;
The role of foreign supply chains, particularly from major exporters, in meeting United States demand;
The concentration of United States copper imports from a small number of suppliers and the associated risks;
The impact of foreign government subsidies, overcapacity and predatory trade practices on United States industry competitiveness;
The economic impact of artificially suppressed copper prices due to dumping and state-sponsored overproduction;
The potential for export restrictions by foreign nations, including the ability of foreign nations to weaponize their control over refined copper supplies;
The feasibility of increasing domestic copper mining, smelting and refining capacity to reduce import reliance; and
The impact of current trade policies on domestic copper production and whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security.

Within 270 days of the date of the executive order (i.e., by November 22, 2025), the Secretary will submit a report to the President that incorporates findings on whether U.S. dependence on copper imports threatens national security and recommendations for mitigating such threats and strengthening the U.S. copper supply chain. The Administration will subsequently determine appropriate action, if any.
Section 232 continues to be a preferred import adjustment tool for the Trump Administration. Under President Trump’s first term he revived the long-dormant statute, conducting eight (8) Section 232 investigations on imports such as steel, aluminum and uranium ore. Of these various investigations, only the investigations of steel and aluminum imports resulted in new tariffs – but, those tariffs remain in place today, nearly seven years after issuance.
The U.S. Department of Commerce typically invites interested parties to submit written comments or information relevant to the products subject to Section 232 investigations.

USTR Seeks Public Input on Unfair Trade Practices: Impact and Next Steps

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is requesting comments by March 11, 2025, on unfair trade practices in other countries. This alert provides a brief overview of USTR’s request, its potential impacts, and next steps.
The Request: USTR is requesting comments as part of President Trump’s America First Trade Policy. President Trump intends to take action to remedy unfair trade practices from any country with which the United States has a trade deficit. USTR is asking for public input identifying unfair trade practices and their impact. There is a particular interest in large economies with which the United States has trade deficits. USTR will use the comments to make recommendations to President Trump in a report due April 1, 2025. The comment period is not exclusive. USTR may take action in advance of these submissions and has said that it welcomes “ongoing engagement” past the comment period.
Potential Impacts: USTR’s list of countries covers 88 percent of goods trade with the United States. For business facing unfair foreign competition, this is an opportunity to let the administration know about your concerns. Unfair trade practices “may encompass an expansive range of practices,” and USTR is open to considering practices not traditionally considered as trade issues. It is unclear what actions the USTR may take to remedy these practices, but increased tariffs are a likely outcome. It is also unclear when such remedies will be put in place.
Next Steps: Interested parties may submit comments through the USTR Comments Portal. The Blank Rome team can advise and assist companies who wish to participate in this process.

GeTtin’ SALTy Episode 47: Texas Legislative Insights, Politics, and State Tax Priorities [Podcast]

In this episode of GeTtin’ SALTy, host Nikki Dobay is joined by colleagues Elizabeth Hadley and Catalina Baron from Greenberg Traurig’s Texas offices to discuss the ongoing Texas legislative session and its implications on state and local tax policy.
Elizabeth is a member of Greenberg Traurig’s Government Law and Policy team and joins the GT SALT team to get in the weeds on Texas policy and politics. The conversation explores the nuances of Texas’s legislative process as well as some of the key priorities the Texas legislature will be focused on this year. Elizabeth goes on to discuss the state’s fiscal health and how it may impact those key priorities, including tax.
Nikki, Elizabeth, and Cat talk about property tax reform, which is on the legislative agenda proposing an increase in homestead exemptions. They also touch on other priorities such as education savings accounts, water infrastructure investments, and bail reform, exploring how these areas might interact with the budget and legislative calendar.
The episode concludes with a discussion about a couple Texas legislative traditions as well as TV guilty pleasures.