March 2022

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) published proposed rules on March 21 that, for the first time, would codify the Commission’s expectations regarding what kinds of climate-related disclosures public companies must make in their required filings to the SEC. Prior to now, companies have had to rely on 2010 guidance from the Commission to determine what information they should disclose to investors regarding their climate-related risks.

In a proposed rule signed on February 28, but not yet published in the Federal Register, EPA proposed to significantly expand its current approach to regulating the interstate transport of ozone. Under the so-called “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, states are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA containing rules sufficient to prohibit emissions from their state that would either significantly contribute to another state’s nonattainment of national ambient air quality standards or interfere with another state’s maintenance of those standards. If a state submits a SIP that is insufficient to satisfy its good neighbor obligation, EPA must issue a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to fully address the problem.

The listing status of the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been the subject of litigation since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) originally listed it as threatened in 2015. At that time, the Service also issued an ESA Section 4(d) rule that allowed incidental take resulting from development activities to occur within its range and habitat where white nose syndrome (WNS) was not present, so long as certain best management practices, such as time of year restrictions on tree removal, were followed. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the Service’s 2015 listing decision did not adequately explain why the bat was not listed as endangered, and failed to address how impacts, such as habitat modification allowed under the 4(d) rule, affected the NLEB. The court remanded the 2015 rule to the Service for further consideration, but allowed the threatened listing and 4(d) rule to stay in place while the Service reconsidered the listing status for the species.