On April 21, Troutman Pepper Locke secured a landmark preliminary injunction on behalf of a consortium of eight regional renewable energy trade groups and a renewable energy nonprofit, blocking further implementation of five directives issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) aimed at creating impediments for federal permitting of wind and solar projects. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that each of the agency actions is arbitrary and capricious and/or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that the plaintiffs demonstrated that each action has irreparably harmed them by delaying or jeopardizing dozens of specific wind and solar projects planned by member developers. The injunction applies only to members of the plaintiff organizations, but positions the renewable energy industry for a decision on the merits that would likely be nationwide in scope.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a list of companies that are allegedly noncompliant “producers” under Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging and paper products, known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The list appeared on the Circular Action Alliance’s (CAA) website on April 10, 2026. The CAA is the “Producer Responsibility Organization” that is charged with implementing EPR programs in Oregon, Colorado, and California.

A March 30, 2026, decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, vacated key provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, including several regulations from 2019 that were revised and/or reissued in 2024. This ruling arrives amid a swirl of potential changes to implementation of the ESA, and signals that courts will be closely scrutinizing forthcoming regulations for consistency with a statute that has long been labeled the “pit bull” of environmental statutes.

At a public hearing held February 26, 2026, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a resolution to adopt initial regulations implementing California’s landmark climate reporting and disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which will require private and public companies whose revenues exceed certain thresholds to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and disclose climate-related financial risks, respectively. In its resolution, CARB largely adopted the regulations proposed by staff in December 2025.

On December 22, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued short and nearly identical lease suspension orders that halted construction on five utility-scale offshore wind projects off Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, alleging new and classified national security threats. These suspensions sparked an immediate wave of litigation as the affected developers sought court orders that would allow them to resume work and keep to their carefully scripted construction timelines. Six weeks later, the dust has settled on a clean sweep for the offshore wind industry: all five projects won injunctions from four different judges in three different jurisdictions, appointed by one Democratic and two Republican presidents. Now that all construction of these projects is back on track, what lessons can we learn from this episode?

On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.  

On January 15, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the long-awaited proposed rule Updating the Water Quality Certification Regulations (Proposed Rule), which, if adopted, would largely reinstate the previous Trump administration’s 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule (2020 Rule). EPA’s proposal seeks to limit the scope of state-issued water quality certifications (WQCs) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to water quality impacts associated with discharges authorized by federal agency actions. The Proposed Rule also addresses concerns raised by applicants for federal licenses and permits (including for hydroelectric projects, natural gas pipelines, and other energy and infrastructure projects) that certain states have overstepped their Section 401 authority to impose onerous terms and conditions unrelated to water quality and artificially extended the statutory time limits for issuing WQCs.

On January 8, 2026, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized 57 Nationwide Permits first proposed in June of last year. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are streamlined federal permits for activities that affect waters of the United States, ranging from routine development and infrastructure projects to major projects. In this action…

On December 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a rulemaking package for its proposed “initial regulation” to implement California’s landmark climate disclosure laws: Senate Bill (SB) 253, requiring annual reporting of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and SB 261, requiring the disclosure of climate-related financial risks. CARB also announced an in-person and virtual public hearing on the proposed rule to be held during the board’s regularly scheduled meeting on February 26, 2026.

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down the freeze on federal permits for wind energy projects — a central component of the Wind Presidential Memorandum (the Wind Order) issued on the first day of the current administration. Judge Patti Saris’s opinion held that the Wind Order is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and directed that it be vacated in full — meaning the ruling applies nationally. The decision was previewed in the court’s preliminary order in July indicating that the Wind Order was on shaky legal ground, citing a lack of administrative record to support the Wind Order and precedent from cases involving analogous moratoriums for offshore oil and gas. Despite the major win for wind, though, there is still significant uncertainty regarding how this administration will respond to the ruling and how it will affect wind energy permitting going forward.