California’s drive toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2045 is sparking innovative solutions to harmonize environmental conservation with infrastructure development. Assembly Bill (AB) 550, sponsored by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, aims to amend the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by permitting renewable energy projects to take unlisted but “at-risk” species. The proposed legislation recognizes the dual imperative of advancing clean energy while conserving California’s biodiversity.

The California legislature continues to advance Senate Bill 601 (SB 601), the “Right to Clean Water Act,”[1] which aims to safeguard protections for California’s streams and wetlands that lost federal protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. U.S. EPA decision. If approved, SB 601 would expand enforcement to include citizen suits and increase penalties for unpermitted discharges to state waters.

On Wednesday, April 16, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to order Equinor to “stop work” on its 812 megawatt Empire Wind 1 project just outside of New York Harbor. This project is a major component of New York’s plan to meet its 2040 carbon zero goal, and received all of its federal approvals in 2023 and 2024 after more than four years of intensive federal, state, and local environmental review. Equinor began active construction almost immediately after receiving full permitting approval in early 2024 and resumed marine activities in Spring 2025.

On April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together Services) published a proposed rule to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposal appears to be one of the first in response to President Trump’s April 9 Presidential Memorandum, “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” which directs federal agencies to revise or rescind regulations that conflict with the plain meaning of the underlying statute. If adopted, it will significantly change the ESA’s implementation. The FWS and NMFS are taking comments on the proposed rule from April 17 through May 17.

Challenging a slew of state climate-related laws and programs, President Trump’s April 8, 2025 executive order (EO) set the stage for more legal fights between the federal government and states. In the new EO, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” Trump took aim at state laws and programs that address greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), climate change, environmental justice, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Some states have already indicated they will oppose the Trump administration’s efforts.

On the evening of April 9, 2025, the Trump administration released a pair of deregulatory executive actions that could have major implications for any industry subject to federal rules — and are also likely to be a magnet for litigation. These orders come fast on the heels of an April 8 executive order, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” which announces actions to curtail state and local laws and policies focused on climate change and environmental justice.

In what should be welcome news to industry and others who generate hazardous waste in California (including contaminated soil), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), through the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), released a Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan: A Modern Approach to a Circular Economy (Plan) on March 15. As provided in the Plan, DTSC proposes to potentially simplify the characterization of hazardous waste, provide for alternative management standards for certain hazardous wastes, and adopt certain existing U.S. EPA recycling exemptions and exclusions.

UPDATE

On February 19, the White House unveiled an interim final rule (IFR) to rescind all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated since 1977. The IFR takes effect immediately and bypasses the usual public notice and comment process for rulemakings by invoking the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)[1], although its publication in the Federal Register will trigger a 30-day public comment period.

Background

Port Arthur Community Action Network (PACAN) v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality et al. (Tex. Feb. 14, 2025) presented the Texas Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to provide defined guideposts to understand just what is “best available control technology” or “BACT” for the purposes of Texas air permitting.