Articles Posted in Environmental

Posted
by , and

A federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

In a closely watched first for state packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, a federal court has upheld Oregon’s recycling law on the merits. On August 27, 2026, following a five-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon held that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (D. Or. Aug. 27, 2026). The ruling follows a February preliminary injunction that applied to the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members while the case moved to trial. As the first merits decision to uphold a modern state packaging EPR program against these constitutional challenges, the decision is likely to shape both pending litigation in other states and how producers approach compliance as state EPR programs move from design to enforcement. For producers subject to state packaging EPR programs, this decision adds judicial backing to the expanding regulatory framework of mandatory producer accountability, with direct implications for compliance planning, cost allocation, and financial disclosure.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , , and

On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).)

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

For nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

Maryland lawmakers have overridden the governor’s veto to enact legislation directing a statewide assessment of climate-related costs, while New Jersey lawmakers are preparing a January committee hearing for the State’s pending Climate Superfund Act. Together, these actions underscore continued state-level interest in both study-based and liability-focused climate-cost attribution frameworks, even as four separate lawsuits challenging state climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont proceed in federal court.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

On December 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued proposed regulations and a staff report for California’s comprehensive climate disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261). These proposed regulations come less than a month after the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction temporarily halting enforcement of SB 261, at least until a January 9, 2026, hearing on the plaintiffs’ requested longer-term injunction through the remainder of the First Amendment challenge to the laws. The draft regulations would adopt some, but not all, of the provisions proposed by CARB in its public workshops on the laws to date, and notably would scale back applicability to those companies above a threshold level of sales in the state. The proposed regulations also define key terms, establish the program fee structures, explain fee enforcement and set initial reporting timelines. The written comment period begins on December 26, 2025, and ends on February 9, 2026. CARB will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulations on February 26, 2026 at 9 a.m. PST.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

For decades, the phrase “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has dictated whether a wetland, stream, or pond falls within federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Two years and a change in administration later, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have returned with a new proposal aimed at aligning the rulebook with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA and restoring a degree of predictability to one of the most litigated terms in environmental law.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by and

On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction temporarily halting the implementation of California’s SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, just weeks before the law’s first mandated disclosures on January 1, 2026. The court declined to stay California’s companion climate emissions disclosure bill, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), due to that bill’s less immediately pressing compliance deadline of August 2026.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , , and

On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Texas’s request for primacy over Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, authorizing the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) to issue and oversee permits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) injection projects. The final rule makes Texas the sixth state to secure primacy over Class VI wells—following North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arizona and West Virginia—and marks EPA’s third such approval in the last several months.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by , and

CARB-logo-300x225The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a preliminary list of companies it believes may be subject to the state’s new climate disclosure regime, which imposes significant disclosure duties on large United States entities “doing business in California”—even if the business they do in California is not itself large. CARB’s list comes after a federal trial court declined to stay the rules, with the first compliance deadline set to go into effect January 2026 even as the agency’s implementing regulations remain under development.

Continue Reading ›