Utilities & Transport – Page 2

EU Enforcement Action: 21 Airlines Commit to Reform Environmental Claims — What Aviation and Non-Aviation Businesses Should Know

On November 5, 2025, the European Commission (Commission) announced that 21 airlines committed to modifying their environmental marketing practices after EU consumer authorities alleged several common environmental claims could mislead passengers. The airlines agreed they will not claim that paying extra to fund climate protection projects or the use of alternative aviation fuels can directly neutralize or reduce emissions on an individual flight. In addition, the airlines committed to tighter substantiation, clearer disclosures, and more transparent CO₂ calculators, particularly as they relate to their use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). National consumer authorities will monitor implementation and may enforce against carriers that fall short.
Although the Commission’s action targets EU airlines, U.S. airlines should review their marketing in the EU accordingly. In addition, the EU’s action provides important insight into how EU authorities view environmental marketing claims more generally. Companies in other sectors should review their environmental marketing claims in light of this action, particularly if they have programs that give consumers the option to pay extra fees to fund the use of alternative fuels or support projects that offset emissions.
Legal Framework & Enforcement Posture
The Commission’s announcement follows a coordinated review by the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, a network of authorities responsible for enforcing EU consumer protection laws. The CPC Network can take action under the Consumer Protection Regulation to address cross-border issues at the EU level in coordination with the Commission.
In addition to announcing the commitments from the 21 airlines subject to the review, the Commission also published a table tracking each airline’s commitments and timelines; authorities will verify timely implementation and pursue enforcement, if needed. To ensure fair competition and a level playing field in the aviation industry, the Commission’s announcement states that the CPC Network will also assess the practices of other airlines operating in the Single Market, and, where necessary, require the same commitments.
The CPC’s action stemmed from an alert filed by BEUC (representing consumer organizations across the EU) in June 2023, pursuant to the Consumer Protection Regulation, alleging that 17 European airlines misled consumers by claiming “green fees” would render their flights sustainable and, more broadly, by implying “flying is sustainable.” The complaint alleged that these claims constitute infringements of Directive 2005/29/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – UCPD).
The UCPD harmonizes national laws governing business-to-consumer practices in the internal market and prohibits unfair commercial practices (Article 5), misleading actions (Article 6), and misleading omissions (Article 7). The European Commission’s Guidance Notice on the interpretation and application of the UCPD, though not legally binding, is intended to clarify and facilitate its proper application, and includes guidance on which environmental claims may be considered misleading.
What the 21 Airlines Committed to Change

Clarify that a specific flight’s CO₂ emissions cannot be neutralized, offset, or directly reduced by optional passenger payments for climate projects or alternative fuels.
Use “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) terminology only with appropriate clarifications and substantiation.
Avoid vague “green” language or implicit environmental claims.
Provide more detail when stating future climate goals (e.g., net-zero): include timelines, achievable steps, and the types of emissions covered.
Display CO₂ calculations clearly and transparently.
Support claims with sufficient scientific evidence.

Why This Matters in Aviation and Beyond
Although this example targets airlines, it signals how EU enforcers expect environmental marketing to be framed across sectors:

Claims that payment of fees will render products/services “Carbon-Neutral” or “Sustainable” Require Rigorous Clarification and Substantiation. The CPC’s scrutiny of pay-to-offset schemes may serve as a warning to other industries that sell add-ons implying immediate neutrality.
SAF and similar “transition” claims need precise context. Claims about cleaner inputs (e.g., SAF) should avoid implying one-for-one emission reductions for a specific transaction and must be properly qualified.
Aspirational goals must be anchored in plans. Claims regarding net-zero or carbon-neutral goals should include timelines, milestones, scope clarity (Scopes 1–3), and methodologies.
CO₂ calculators may be perceived as marketing claims. If you publish route- or product-level emissions figures, expect scrutiny of assumptions, data sources, and presentation.
EU coordination is accelerating. This airline action follows earlier EU-level probes and national rulings that have tightened the bar on “sustainable flight” messaging.

Practical Next Steps For EU-facing Marketers

Inventory – and revise if appropriate – green claims and map each to evidence (testing or internationally recognized methodologies), consistent with UCPD guidance and the evolving landscape of green marketing law at the EU-level (e.g., the Empowering Consumers Directive and the pending Green Claims Directive) and member-state level.
Avoid using vague buzzwords (“eco-friendly,” “green,” “sustainable”) unless defined and substantiated, in alignment with EU law.
Train relevant internal teams (e.g., marketing, sustainability, and legal) on EU marketing laws, guidance, and prior decisions affecting green marketing claims and set up pre-clearance for sustainability messaging.
Continue to closely monitor the rapidly evolving legal and policy developments in green marketing, not just in the EU but in other jurisdictions as well. (see, e.g., Canada Issues Guidelines on Civil Greenwashing Claims One Year After Amendments to the Competition Act).

What to Watch Next

Whether national authorities or the CPC Network widen their focus to other sectors
Continued negotiations over the finalization of the Green Claims Directive and national regulation and guidance on environmental claims and green marketing.
Emerging case law and consumer-protection actions in European jurisdictions targeting broader “greenwashing” tactics, including the use of sustainability labels, “eco-friendly” branding, and offset claims.

Illinois 2025 Employment Law Wrap-Up- Essential Updates for Employers

Takeaways

From the Illinois Human Rights Act to the Workplace Transparency Act, the state has announced a broad range of measures affecting workplace policies and compliance obligations.
Other new laws impacting employers include the Warehouse Tornado Preparedness Act and the Family Neonatal Intensive Care Leave Act.
Employers are encouraged to proactively review their current workplace policies, handbooks, and compliance procedures and consider the assistance of counsel.

Court Grants Emergency Stay on FMCSA Interim Final Rule Restricting Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses

After temporarily pausing a recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) interim final rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. has taken the additional action of granting an emergency stay order over the rule.
The rule is aimed at limiting issuance and renewal of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for numerous groups of non-citizens legally in the U.S., including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA holders.
On Nov. 10, 2025, the court put a temporary stay on the interim rule and has gone a step further on Nov. 13 in ordering an emergency motion for stay be granted.
As the court states in its emergency stay order:
To start, for purposes of the stay motions, petitioners have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed in at least three of their challenges to respondents’ interim final rule.

The court then highlights the following three factors:

The FMCSA improperly issued the rule without prior “consultation with the States.”

The FMCSA has not satisfied the narrow good-cause exception to issue the rule without notice and comment.
The FMCSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the rule.

In addition to the above, the court states that “other stay factors also favor such relief.” The court concludes that, despite the FMCSA’s request for a narrow emergency stay, the rule has been restrained in wholeuntil the court comes to a resolution.
Circuit Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson penned a lengthy dissent, arguing for an expedited review of the matter on its merits, rather than granting the emergency stay.
For employers, as the stay continues and the rule will not be implemented, CDLs can continue to be renewed and issued under the prior rules while the court completes its review.

Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government

A group of 40 Democratic lawmakers have sent a letter to 19 state governors warning that they may be “inadvertently sharing drivers’ data with federal immigration authorities.”
According to the letter, the states “are providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies ‘with frictionless, self-service access to the personal data of all of your residents,’” through the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (Nlets) which has been used by states for over two decades to share personal data of residents—including driver license data from a state’s Department of Motor Vehicles—for law enforcement activities.
According to the letter, the use of Nlets allows “agencies to directly access residents’ data without the knowledge or involvement of any state employee.” Further, Nlets facilitated “over 290 million queries for DMV data, with more than 290,000 queries from ICE and some 600,000 from Homeland Security Investigations during the year before October 1, 2025.” The letter alleges that the queries have increased during the Trump administration.
The letter states “It is now abundantly clear that a major reason that so few states have locked down the data they share through Nlets is because of an information gap.” “Because of the technical complexity of Nlets’ system, few state government officials understand how their state is sharing their residents’ data with federal and out-of-state agencies.”
The lawmakers urge governors to block “unfettered access” to the data, which “would not prevent federal agencies obtaining information from states for solving serious crimes, but taking action would ‘increase accountability and reduce abuse’ by allowing state employees to review data requests first.” According to the letter, “This commonsense step will improve public safety and guard against Trump officials using your state’s data for unjustified, politicized actions, while still allowing continued collaboration on serious crimes.”
According to the letter, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington have already blocked the information sharing and Oregon is in the process of doing so. Nlets states on its website that “we are the information superhighway of the law enforcement community….We do not own any of the data that is being used in the criminal justice or public safety realm – we exist solely for the purpose of securely accessing that information and providing it to the criminal justice community.”

Court Temporarily Pauses FMCSA Interim Final Rule Restricting Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses

The federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has placed a temporary administrative stay on implementation of a recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) interim final rule that would limit issuance and renewal of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for non-domiciled applicants individuals. Lujan, et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, et al., No. 25-1215 (Nov. 10, 2025).
The temporary stay puts on hold the interim final rule on the basis that it would limit CDLs eligibility for numerous groups of non-citizens legally in the U.S., including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA holders.
With the temporary stay in effect, the court will conduct a thorough review making a final determination on the legality of the FMSCA interim rule.
The court order states:
… the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s interim final rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 46,509 (Sept. 29, 2025), be administratively stayed pending further order of the court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motions for stay pending review and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of those motions.

The rule would have limited “issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to individuals with specific lawful employment-based nonimmigrant status categories (H-2A, H-2B, or E-2).” For employers, CDLs can continue to be renewed and issued under the prior rules while the court completes its review.
The court has not yet scheduled oral arguments on the matter, but they are expected in the coming months with a resolution likely in 2026.

My Days of Taking Space Junk Seriously are Certainly Coming to a Middle

An hour after writing a blog post about a recent study mapping the large quantity of space debris in orbit (particularly in lower Earth orbit “LEO”), I learned that three Chinese astronauts were actively stranded in space because a small unknown piece of debris is believed to have damaged their return vessel. This is the second time a piece of space debris has hit and damaged the Chinese space station, Tiangong. Three days later, those astronauts are still stranded with no plan for returning to Earth, at least not one the Chinese government has announced. On that same afternoon, showers of debris were reported in the Florida sky.
The recent study by Kahn and Curlee analyzed 34,000 pieces of space debris being tracked; however, those tens of thousands of pieces do not include the unknown number of tiny fragments moving at incredible speed and able to do real damage. In addition to increasing the risk associated with space debris and potential collisions, this also brings up a big question of liability.
The US, the UN, and other countries all maintain registries of objects in space. Part of the reason for this is allocating liability if those objects cause damage. Under our current regime of treaties and conventions, the nation that launched the object into space is liable for any damage it causes. For instance, in the late 1970’s, a Russian satellite reentered Earth’s atmosphere over Canada, raining down radioactive debris and causing damage in Canada. The resulting claims under the Outer Space Treaty resulted in judgment against Russia to the tune of $6 million (Canadian).
But what happens when nobody knows what random fragment of space debris caused the problem? Which country bears the cost of the damage? What happens when such debris was launched by a private company? Under the current system, there may not be an answer – no body, no crime. The most recent push for space regulation at the international level, the Artemis Accords seek to proactively manage the creation of orbital debris, but even the latest and greatest international treaty does not contain the solution to this problem.
While objects larger than 10 cm can be found and tracked, the real danger comes from harder-to-see debris that can be as small as a bullet and travel at more than 27,000 kilometers per hour. “Those are the scary ones,” says Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian. “They are time bombs in orbit.”
www.scientificamerican.com/…

US DOT Announces Changes to DBE Program

On Oct. 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) fundamentally restructuring its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concessions DBE (ACDBE) programs by eliminating race- and sex-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage and replacing them with a uniform, individualized showing that the award is needed to redress the economic effects of actual previous discrimination for all applicants.
The IFR also mandates a one-time, nationwide reevaluation of all existing certifications, temporarily suspends the setting of contract goals and the counting of DBE/ACDBE participation toward goals until reevaluations are complete, and updates multiple program definitions, as well as reporting and goal-setting provisions.
These changes follow DOT and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) determination that the statutory race and sex-based presumptions of disadvantage are unconstitutional. Existing and prospective DBE firms must now substantiate their social and economic disadvantage through a personal narrative and financial documentation. The Unified Certification Programs (UCP) performing certifications must promptly implement the new standards and recertify or decertify existing firms.
Background
On Sept. 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Mid-America Milling Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp, No. 3:23–cv–00072, 2024 WL 4267183 (Sept. 23, 2024) granted a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the DBE program’s reliance on race- and sex-based presumptions likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The court held that Congress’s approach for identifying groups receiving a presumption of disadvantage was unexplained and had no logical endpoint; thus, the program was not narrowly tailored.
The IFR states that it is based on DOT and DOJ’s evaluation of the DBE and ACDBE programs in light of Mid-America Milling Co. decision, as well as similar decisions in Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 683 F. Supp. 3d 745 (E.D. Tenn. 2023) and Nuziard v. Minority Bus. Dev. Agency, 721 F. Supp. 3d 431 (N.D. Tex. 2024). The IFR states that effective Oct. 3, 2025, DOT is eliminating these presumptions from the DBE and ACDBE program regulations. On Oct. 24, 2025, following widespread confusion and varying interpretations of the IFR’s requirements by UCPs, DOT also released FAQs clarifying the rule. This GT Alert summarizes the key changes to the DBE program and what currently certified DBE firms might expect.
Key Updates
Removal of Race-and-Gender Based Presumptions
Under the IFR, 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26 now require a case-by-case finding of “socially and economically disadvantaged” (SED) status for every applicant, without reliance (in whole or in part) on race or sex. Where the burden was once on a certifier to prove that an individual in a group presumed to be disadvantaged was not disadvantaged, the burden is now on the applicant firm to prove their SED status.
All applicants must submit a personal narrative demonstrating disadvantage, by a preponderance of evidence, using specific instances of economic hardship, systemic barriers, and denied opportunities that impeded the owner’s progress or success in education, employment, or business (including impediments in obtaining financing on terms available to similarly situated non-SED businesses). Applicants must state “how and to what extent the impediments caused the owner economic harm, including a full description of type and magnitude.”
Mandatory Reevaluation of Certified DBEs
All currently certified DBEs and ACDBEs will be required to undergo recertification under the new eligibility standard. Certifiers must provide these firms with an opportunity to submit documentation under the new standards, determine eligibility, and issue written recertification or decertification decisions. Certain states, such as Virginia, released notices regarding the IFR and the requirement to submit a personal narrative. These notices stated that firms that fail to comply with recertification requirements would be decertified without the opportunity to have a hearing. However, DOT clarified in its Oct. 24, 2025, update that DBEs decertified under the reevaluation procedures are still entitled to appeal their decertification under 49 C.F.R. § 26.89.
Suspension of DBE Goals
In order to prevent existing DBEs and ACDBEs from continuing to receive benefits based on their certification under the old standard, contracting goals will be suspended until a DOT funding recipient’s UCP completes all DBE and ACDBE recertifications. Until then, recipients of DOT funding cannot set contracting goals for DBEs or ACDBEs or count any participation toward overall goals.
Immediate Effects on Contracting and Compliance
DOT funding recipients and certified DBEs must take immediate steps to comply with DOT’s recent changes. For contracts that have been advertised but not yet awarded (i.e., bids have not yet opened), recipients are required to amend advertisements to remove any DBE contract goals. If bids have been opened but contracts are not yet awarded, recipients must zero out the DBE goal. DOT has stated that it will allow recipients to amend said contracts without readvertising them, but that each recipient should make its own determination as to whether the contract needs to be recompeted under state law.
Contracts executed before Oct. 3, 2025, do not require any modification; however, DBE participation on such contracts may not be counted toward either the contract goal or the DOT funding recipient’s overall DBE goal until the relevant UCP has fully completed the reevaluation process. During this period, recipients are not required to conduct commercially useful function reviews of DBE work.
Importantly, DOT’s DBE termination provisions remain in effect: prime contractors may not terminate a DBE or reduce its scope without prior written consent from the recipient and a showing of good cause. For design-build projects, if DBE subcontracts were signed before Oct. 3, 2025, those agreements may proceed, and DBEs may not be terminated except under the same consent and good-cause rule.
Lastly, recipients must include the nondiscrimination and assurance clauses required by 49 CFR §§ 23.9 and 26.13 in all contracts awarded on or after Oct. 3, 2025, and continue to comply with the prompt payment requirements in 49 CFR § 26.29 throughout the UCP reevaluation period. Despite these changes to the DBE program, the IFR does not affect any joint venture or subcontracting agreements DBE firms may currently have in place. DBEs and government contractors partnering with DBEs may wish to consult with counsel for further guidance before unilaterally modifying performance under said agreements.

FMCSA Restricting Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses, Announces Interim Final Rule

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced that it has strengthened requirements for issuance and renewal of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for non-domiciled applicants individuals.
The FMCSA’s interim final rule limits issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to individuals with specific lawful employment-based nonimmigrant status categories (H-2A, H-2B, or E-2).
The rule also requires state driver’s licensing agencies (SDLAs) to use the USCIS SAVE system, the online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies, to verify the immigration status and citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.
The rule includes the following key changes:

Only individuals in H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa status are eligible for a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permit (CLP) or CDL.
Non-citizen applicants, except for U.S. permanent residents, must provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired I-94/94A Arrival/Departure Record indicating one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories, specifically H-2B, H-2A, and E-2 classifications, at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action defined in the regulation. EADs alone (categories (b)(9) and (a)(17)) will no longer suffice for eligibility.
Individual states must immediately pause issuance or renewal of non-domiciled CDLs/CLPs until their processes comply.
CDL or CLP validity is limited to one year or the expiration date of the Form I-94/94A, whichever is sooner.

Employees who currently use EADs as proof of work authorization for I-9 purposes remain authorized for employment and may continue to work. However, the new rule will not allow an individual with an EAD to renew or transfer their CDL unless the employer is able to sponsor the driver as an H-2B, H-2A, or E-2, which would be difficult.

Foley Automotive Update – November 2025

Key Developments

Foley & Lardner provided an overview on supply chain cyber threats, and best practices for mitigating cyber risks.
The Michigan Supreme Court intends to rule in the months ahead on a dispute over the “legitimacy of Stellantis’ supplier contracts,” according to an update from Crain’s Detroit.
U.S. new light-vehicle sales in October 2025 fell by over 4% year-over-year to a SAAR of 15.4 million units, according to preliminary analysis from Haver Analytics.
Foley & Lardner partner Gregory Husisian shared insight on how a possible tariff refund process could play out in the SupplyChainDive article, “What shippers need to know about potential tariff refunds.” The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on November 5, 2025, regarding the legality of the Trump administration’s tariffs as imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
China’s Commerce Ministry suggested it will offer exemptions to the recently imposed export restrictions on semiconductors made by Chinese-owned, Netherlands-based Nexperia, which supplies an estimated 40% of certain chips critical to automakers. The company has various issues to resolve with the Dutch government, and uncertainty remains over when the shipments will resume.
A new trade and economic deal between the U.S. and China includes a reprieve on certain rare-earth export controls recently imposed by China. Despite the two nations’ recently announced trade agreement, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer plans to continue an investigation into China’s compliance with a limited trade agreement reached during President Trump’s first term. The results of this Section 301 probe could result in new tariffs, or leverage in subsequent trade negotiations.
S&P Global Mobility assessed the impact of the Section 232 tariffs on truck and bus imports imposed by the Trump administration on November 1. The analysis notes the October 17 executive order announcing the levies also expanded the list of tariffed auto parts, with “more varieties of drive axles, wider application of engine components, and adds items including touch screen displays, certain engine control units and speakers.”
President Trump extended a November 1, 2025 deadline to reach a trade deal with Mexico for an unspecified number of weeks, resulting in a delay of higher tariffs on Mexican goods that do not meet the content rules of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
President Trump intends to impose an additional 10% tariff on Canadian imports, and said he does not plan to resume trade negotiations with Canada due to an anti-tariff advertisement aired by the Ontario government. The Trump administration did not provide details on the implementation of the new tariffs or if USMCA-compliant goods would be exempt.
The U.S. and South Korea are reported to have finalized a trade deal that is expected to establish a 15% cap on U.S. tariffs on Korean goods. This follows a framework agreement the nations announced in July.
Last month the U.S. Senate narrowly passed three measures opposing President Trump’s global “reciprocal” tariffs, as well as the emergency authorities underpinning the tariffs on Canada and Brazil. The U.S. House is not expected to vote on the measures in the near future, and Congress would require a two-thirds majority to overcome a presidential veto.

OEMs/Suppliers

Revised projections for tariff-related costs in 2025 are between $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion for GM, up to $1.2 billion for Stellantis, and up to $1 billion for Ford.
Canada intends to reduce the number of vehicles GM and Stellantis can import tariff-free into the country in response to the automakers’ plans to reduce vehicle production in the nation.
A number of major automakers submitted filings to urge the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office to extend the USMCA, as it accounts “for tens of billions of dollars in annual savings.” The USMCA is scheduled for formal review in 2026.
Ford estimated the recent fire at a significant aluminum supplier will impact profitability by $1.5 billion to $2 billion in 2025, while noting mitigation efforts are expected to offset half of the cost.
American Axle plans to invest $133 million to increase production and upgrade its plant in Three Rivers, Michigan.
Nissan reduced its U.S. output by approximately 7,400 vehicles in October due to parts shortages.
Geely will acquire a 26.4% stake in Renault do Brasil, and the Chinese automaker expects the partnership will accelerate its plans to expand sales in the market.
Multiple European automakers have replaced CEOs this year, as ongoing economic and market challenges impact European vehicle sales.

Market Trends and Regulatory

According to the NADA Data 2025: Midyear Report released in October, there were 16,972 new-car dealerships in the U.S. as of June 2025, and the top five states with the most dealerships were California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In addition, 90.7% of all new light-vehicle dealers owned one to five stores, down from 95% in 2014.
WardsAuto provided a list of the top automotive conferences to consider in 2026.
Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies secured $1.4 billion in combined funding from the U.S. government and private investors to establish a domestic rare-earth magnet supply chain.

Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software

Waymo began testing its autonomous vehicles in Detroit. The company currently offers robotaxi service in parts of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Austin, and it plans to expand services to cities including San Diego and Las Vegas next year.
Uber announced plans to launch autonomous taxi service in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2026 with vehicles developed in partnership with EV maker Lucid and self-driving technology company Nuro Inc. Uber has also established a goal to have a fleet of 100,000 autonomous vehicles in its fleet that are powered by Nvidia technology beginning in 2027.
Bloomberg provided an overview of Chinese companies’ robotaxi deployment plans within multiple regions.

Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

J.D. Power predicted U.S. EV sales in October 2025 will decline 3.4 percentage points to a market share of 5.2%, as the market recalibrates following the expiration of federal tax credits.
On November 4, Automotive News updated its list of U.S. EV models that have been delayed or canceled.
GM plans to lay off over 3,000 hourly workers across its EV and EV battery plants in Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee in the coming months. Over half of the layoffs are expected to be indefinite. The automaker also laid off over 200 salaried workers at its Warren Tech Center in Michigan as part of a restructuring of its design-engineering team, and over 300 employees as part of the closure of its Georgia IT center.
BYD reported its third-quarter 2025 net profit declined 33% year-over-year, and revenue fell 3% YOY.
LG Energy Solution – Stellantis joint venture NextStar Energy will shift to producing batteries for energy storage systems at its Windsor, Ontario factory instead of EV batteries.
Volkswagen subsidiary PowerCo started construction on a $7 billion EV battery plant in St. Thomas, Ontario.

Hidden Injuries You Might Overlook After an Accident

After an accident, the most visible injuries typically get the most attention, such as cuts, bruises, or broken bones. However, not every injury is immediately apparent. Some symptoms can take hours or even days to appear. These “hidden injuries” can be just as serious and may worsen without treatment.
Understanding what signs to be aware of and getting medical care right away can make a big difference in your recovery and help protect your legal rights if someone else caused your injuries.
1. Whiplash
Whiplash is one of the most common injuries after a car accident, especially rear-end collisions. It happens when your neck and head are suddenly forced back and forth. Pain and stiffness often appear the next day, leading many people to assume they were not injured. Symptoms include neck pain, headaches, dizziness, and shoulder or back discomfort. Early diagnosis and physical therapy can help prevent long-term problems.
2. Concussions and Brain Injuries
You can get a concussion even if your head never hits anything. The sudden movement of the brain inside the skull can cause swelling or bruising that leads to dizziness, confusion, nausea, or sensitivity to light and sound. Because these symptoms can develop slowly, they are easy to overlook. Always take potential head injuries seriously and get evaluated by a doctor.
3. Internal Bleeding and Organ Damage
Internal bleeding is one of the most dangerous hidden injuries because there may be no visible signs. It can result from damaged organs or blood vessels during a crash. Warning signs include deep bruising, abdominal pain, swelling, or extreme fatigue. If left untreated, internal bleeding can become life-threatening. Seek medical care immediately if you notice anything unusual.
4. Soft Tissue Injuries
Soft tissue injuries include sprains, strains, and muscle damage. Pain or swelling often develops gradually over the next few days. These injuries are common even in low-speed accidents, and can limit mobility or cause chronic pain. Rest and physical therapy can help with recovery.
5. Back and Spine Injuries
Back pain after an accident should never be ignored. Herniated discs, pinched nerves, and spinal injuries can start with mild symptoms that worsen over time. Tingling, numbness, or weakness in your arms or legs may indicate a serious issue. Seeing a doctor early can prevent long-term complications.
Why It Is Important to Seek Medical Attention After an Accident
Even if you feel fine, it is important to see a medical professional as soon as possible. Some injuries take time to develop, and early testing can detect issues before they worsen. Medical records also link your injuries to the accident, which is essential if you later file an insurance or legal claim. A delay in your care can weaken your ability to show what happened and how you were harmed.
Conclusion
New or lingering pain could be a sign of a hidden injury, and it is important not to ignore your symptoms or delay getting medical help.

DOE Directs FERC to Take Action on Large Load Interconnection

On 23 October 2025, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for the interconnection of retail loads greater than 20 MW to jurisdictional transmission facilities.1 DOE expects FERC to take final action not later than 30 April 2026.
In issuing the letter and proposed rule, Secretary Wright explained that unprecedented and extraordinary quantities of electricity and substantial investment in the nation’s interstate transmission system are necessary to meet the Trump administration’s commitment to revitalizing domestic manufacturing and driving American artificial intelligence innovation. Secretary Wright points to the fact that electricity demand is expected to grow at an extraordinary pace due in large part to the rapid growth of large loads and the unique challenges presented by the size and speed with which data centers can be connected to the grid. Secretary Wright argues that it has become necessary to standardize interconnection procedures and agreements for large loads.
The ANOPR presents a number of principles for consideration in a large load/hybrid interconnection rule, including:
Limited Jurisdiction
FERC interconnection rules would apply only to direct interconnections to jurisdictional transmission facilities.
Large Loads
The rules would apply only to new standalone loads greater than 20 MW and loads greater than 20 MW that share a point of interconnection with new or existing generation facilities (hybrid facilities). The ANOPR seeks comments on whether a 20 MW cutoff for large loads or an alternative threshold is appropriate.
Loads and Generation Studied Together
When possible, interconnecting large loads and hybrid facilities would be studied with generating facility interconnections, which may reduce the scope and cost of network upgrades for the interconnection customer.
Standardized Study Procedures
Large loads and hybrid facilities would be subject to standardized deposits, readiness requirements, and withdrawal penalties. The ANOPR seeks comments on what study deposits, thresholds, commitments, or penalties should apply.
Study Parameters
Hybrid facilities’ interconnections would be studied using the developer’s requested amount of system injection and withdrawal rights.
System Protections
Hybrid interconnections would be required to install system protection facilities that prevent unauthorized injections or withdrawals in excess of study parameters. The ANOPR seeks comments on proposed operational limitations and technical requirements.
Expedited Processes
Curtailable large loads and dispatchable hybrid facilities could seek expedited study procedures. The ANOPR seeks comments on recommendations for accomplishing expedited studies for curtailable large loads.
Cost Causation
Load and hybrid facilities would be responsible for the full cost of all network upgrades identified during the study process. The ANOPR seeks comments on offsetting costs for network upgrades via a crediting mechanism.
Self-Build for Certain Network Upgrades
Large loads and hybrids could exercise the same self-build option that is available to generator interconnection customers.
Co-location with Existing Generation to be Studied
An existing generating facility that enters a partial suspension to serve co-located load would be studied for system reliability impacts. The ANOPR seeks comments on the role of resource adequacy in the relevant studies.
Transmission Service
Transmission service would be based on system withdrawal rights, reflecting the quantity of capacity and energy that is being transmitted across the transmission system to the load.
Ancillary Services
Large loads would pay for ancillary services based on peak demand, without netting for energy supplied by co-located generation.
Transition Plan
A transition plan would address the treatment of large load interconnections that are already being studied for interconnection. The ANOPR seeks comments on appropriate transition plans for interconnections already being studied.
Compliance
All applicable NERC reliability standards and tariff requirements would be complied with.
The ANOPR is intended to provide a path forward to address the urgent electric power needs of large loads. Nevertheless, the rulemaking is going to be controversial. As DOE acknowledges, FERC has never before exercised authority over the interconnection of retail loads. Such a move will likely be viewed by some as an unacceptable encroachment on states’ historic authority.
The ANOPR provides several justifications for exercising jurisdiction over these interconnections. First, large load connections are a critical component of open access transmission service that require minimum terms and conditions to ensure nondiscriminatory transmission service. Second, large load interconnections are directly affecting FERC-jurisdictional wholesale electricity rates. Third, states’ authority to regulate retail electricity sales and site data centers is undisturbed. Lastly, according to DOE, any contrary view would conflict with the Federal Power Act’s core purposes.
Comments on the ANOPR are due by 14 November 2025, and reply comments are due by 28 November 2025.2
Ready to help
The firm’s Power practice group is closely monitoring these developments and stands ready to assist clients in navigating evolving laws, regulations, and policies governing interconnection of data centers, industrial facilities, and large loads.

1Secretary of Energy’s Direction that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Initiate Rulemaking Procedures and Proposal Regarding the Interconnection of Large Loads Pursuant to the Secretary’s Authority Under Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-acts-unleash-american-industry-and-innovation-newly-proposed-rules.
2 Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, Docket No. RM26-4-00, Notice Inviting Comments (Oct. 27, 2025), https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20251027-3056.

Not Only Tariffs on Trucks – Trump Administration’s Proclamation Amends the Tariff Landscape on Automobiles, Steel, and Aluminum

On October 17, 2025, the Trump Administration released a significant proclamation imposing new Section 232 duties on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) (such as trucks); MHDV parts; and buses. These changes further expand tariff coverage over sectors critical to U.S. industrial capacity and national security, and bring a few new complexities to both importers and domestic manufacturers.
A fact sheet regarding the tariffs can be found here.
The tariffs take effect starting on November 1, 2025.
1. Tariff Rates and Scope
The new proclamation covers MHDVs (which include Class 3 to Class 8 vehicles such as large pickup trucks and box trucks), along with key parts like engines, transmissions, and tires as designated in Annex I. Covered items will be subject to a 25 percent tariff as of November 1. Additionally, buses and similar vehicles, including school and transit buses and motor coaches, classified under HTSUS 8702, are subject to a 10 percent tariff.
These tariffs do not apply to MHDVs and buses that were manufactured 25 years before entry into the United States.
Importantly, domestic stakeholders will be able to request additional MHDV parts to be within the scope of these tariffs. This is the same kind of process we have seen for earlier Section 232 cases, enabling U.S. producers an opportunity to request expansion of the scope of the tariffs.
2. United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Treatment
Similar to the Section 232 automobile proclamation, importers of qualifying USMCA MHDVs (except buses under 8702) may submit documentation detailing the proportion of U.S. content in each model. In such cases, the 25 percent tariff would then apply solely to the non-U.S. portion of the vehicle’s value.
MHDV knock-down kits or similar parts collections always face the full additional tariff, regardless of USMCA qualification.
MHDV parts that qualify under USMCA will also not be subject to the 25% tariff until CBP establishes a process for calculating non-U.S. content and publishes a notice to that effect.
3. Import Adjustment Offset for U.S. Assembly
Manufacturers that complete the final assembly of MHDVs in the United States are eligible for an import adjustment offset. This offset allows them to reduce any Section 232 tariffs owed on imported MHDV parts. The offset amount can be as much as 3.75% of the total value of MHDVs assembled domestically, providing an opportunity to lower overall tariff liability for qualifying manufacturers.
This offset program will run from November 1, 2025 through October 31, 2030.
The same offset structure also applies to MHDV engine manufacturers. Additionally, the program aligns with and extends the automobile offset provisions under Proclamation 10925; automobile manufacturers affected by that proclamation can now offset a portion of tariffs on automobile parts, up to 3.75% of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of vehicles they assemble in the United States, through 2030.
It is important to note that neither MHDV nor automobile knock-down kits, or similar parts compilations, are eligible for these offset programs. Furthermore, the Department of Commerce retains the authority to revoke the import adjustment offset for specific products if it determines that the program conflicts with national security objectives.
4. Tariff Stacking Rules
Products covered by this proclamation follow established stacking practices for automobiles and auto parts. If a product is subject to Section 232 auto or auto parts tariffs, or the new MHDV and truck parts tariffs, it is not simultaneously subject to other Section 232 tariffs, nor to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) reciprocal tariffs, or the IEEPA tariffs concerning Canada, Mexico, Brazil, or India. However, the IEEPA fentanyl tariff on China will still apply.
Importantly, even where a tariff is not owed—whether due to USMCA origin compliance, offset adjustments, or reductions through security or trade agreements—the product remains “subject to” the proclamation, and thus excluded from additional tariffs.
Of course, that means we now have two definitions of subject to! As our readers may recall under the tariff stacking rules, “subject to” also means that a duty more than 0% is owed under the tariff action. See CSMS # 65236574 (Jun. 3, 2025).
5. Reduced Aluminum and Steel Tariffs for USMCA-Qualifying Suppliers
Notably, the proclamation also provides up to a 25 percent reduction in steel and aluminum tariffs for aluminum or steel producers that operate production facilities in Canada or Mexico and supply United States automobile or MHDV manufacturers. However, this reduction will only be limited to quantities of aluminum or steel that support new U.S. production capacity. Further, only imports that qualify for preferential treatment under the USMCA, and that were actually smelted and cast or melted and poured in Canada or Mexico, can benefit from this lower tariff.
But the addition of this tariff reduction indicates that the Trump Administration is attempting to create a domestic ecosystem in the steel, aluminum, automobile, and MHDV industry sectors.
6. Chapter 98 HTS Exception
As with previous Section 232 proclamations, goods that are claimed under certain provisions in Chapter 98 of the HTSUS may be exempt from the MHDV/MHDV parts tariff. However, for entries under HTS 9802.00.60, the Section 232 duties must be calculated on the full value of the imported item.