Environmental Law Advisor

The Trump Administration is beginning to roll out its policy plans to “dominate” the global energy space. These plans tackle energy transition issues in a dramatically different manner than did the Biden Administration, particularly by leaning into fostering the development of resources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric power that provide reliable “baseload” supply. This comes as no surprise given President Trump’s promise to “drill, baby, drill” at the inauguration.

The initial weeks of the second Trump Administration has seen fast and furious changes to US government policies touching nearly every aspect of policy.

The Trump Administration has issued a memo directing a temporary freeze on all environmental litigation to allow for review and potential reconsideration by the new Administration of its position in these matters.

Many parties are rightly concerned about the impact of yesterday’s announcement that nearly all federal funds will be frozen for an indeterminate period. Minutes before it was intended to go into effect today, a federal judge in Washington, DC, temporarily ordered the freeze to be lifted until at least Monday February 3, when a full hearing will occur as to whether the freeze is permissible under federal administrative procedure laws and the First Amendment.

The first day of any presidential administration is filled with both ceremony and bureaucracy. The first day of the second Trump Administration was no different.

Working toward a more circular economy will continue to be at the forefront in 2025. More and more, states are requiring producers to manage the end-of-life of an increasing number of consumer items, from packaging materials, paper products, and food service ware, to mattresses, carpets, and more. California is now the first state in the nation to establish an extended producer responsibility program expressly for textiles.

State governments increasingly engage on climate issues. In search of a new source of funding for hundreds of billions of dollars in anticipated climate adaptation costs, a recent New York state law could impose $75 billion of liability on major fossil fuel companies.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced this month that it will use enforcement discretion for the first greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reports due in 2026 to allow regulated businesses (doing business in California with annual revenue of over $1 billion) to report on GHG metrics using older data. CARB is also seeking public comment (due February 14, 2025) on the implementation of the GHG reporting requirements and those related to the disclosure of climate-related financial risks.

In the environmental space, 2024 has been a memorable year with regulatory efforts and court decisions touching on every aspect of environmental and energy regulation, capped out by a closely divided election.

Proponents of more comprehensive climate regulations who are frustrated by the federal government have increasingly turned their attention to state litigation.

There is significant potential that the Congressional Review Act (CRA) will play a prominent role in the early weeks of the Trump Administration. Below, we will break down what the CRA is, when it applies, and how it may be deployed by the incoming US Congress to further Trump Administration regulatory priorities.

As the Biden Administration comes to a close, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has banned two commonly used chemicals under the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

ArentFox Schiff is pleased to announce the addition of Partner Elizabeth L. Horner to its Government Relations practice in the firm’s Washington, DC, office. Elizabeth previously worked on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), where she served as Chief Counsel under Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Senior Counsel under Chairman John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY).

The Biden Administration has put environmental justice (EJ) issues at the forefront of its policy agenda for nearly four years. More comprehensive guidance on how policymakers should evaluate “cumulative impacts” has been a long-promised part of these EJ efforts.

In a departure from past jurisprudence, a recent DC Circuit decision questioned whether the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) had the legal authority to issue key regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision, which evaluated federal planning related to tourist flights over national parks, interpreted CEQ’s NEPA regulations, which prescribe how federal agencies must comply with NEPA and have set the standards for federal agencies’ consideration of the environmental impacts of major federal actions for decades. The decision could impact how many agencies conduct and interpret environmental assessments in areas including biotechnology and agriculture.

While a dispute over the Clean Air Act’s (CAAs) venue provision may seem arcane, a forthcoming US Supreme Court decision will affect core principles of the separation of powers and constitutional due process in ways that may perpetuate judicial efforts to reshape administrative law.

Environmental regulations targeting potential impacts of warehousing facilities continue to be in the spotlight.

Addressing so-called “environmental justice” (EJ) issues was a major focus for the Biden Administration from the time it took office. But, as we prepare for a new administration, the Biden Administration’s primacy in advancing EJ issues has waned, if not disappeared.

Republican lawmakers are continuing their antitrust push against environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investor initiatives by investigating a prominent climate coalition that is focused on getting companies to curb emissions.

Back in the 1970s, US Congress passed laws that allow private parties to bring citizen suits to enforce federal environmental laws.

On September 11, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took final action approving a revision to California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR).

Come September in a presidential election year, the policy world feels like a “winner take all” scenario with the election’s outcome determining how — or this year whether — we are regulated.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced an eight-month postponement of the start of a major reporting requirement for past use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products due to its own reporting software issues.

Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) include various synthetic chemicals that have been used in products ranging from cookware to clothing and carpets to cosmetics for decades.

Often motivated by the lack of federal engagement on environmental issues, various states have evaluated adding “Green Amendments” to their state constitutions. The practical impact of these amendments will be borne out as they are used and challenged in state courts.