Photo of Brooks Smith

Brooks Smith

Subscribe to Brooks Smith's Posts
Follow:Read more about Brooks SmithBrooks's Linkedin Profile

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.

President Trump hit the ground running, issuing more executive orders, memoranda, and other actions on Inauguration Day than any previous president. Agencies are already working to implement those actions. Many of the actions are interrelated, so Troutman Pepper Locke’s Environmental + Natural Resources team has put together the following resource to help assess the impact of these actions on environmental policy, and how the various actions fit together.

This past Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its ruling in the closely watched case of Iowa v. Council on Envtl. Quality, 1:24-cv-089 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025), vacating the Biden administration’s Phase 2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rule on the grounds that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) overstepped its authority when it first promulgated NEPA regulations in 1978. This decision was just the latest in a series of falling dominos over the past three months that have completely upended NEPA practice both inside and outside of the federal government.

The regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” was a focal point for the Biden administration. In April 2024, the administration, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued two key PFAS rules. The first set nationwide drinking water standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for six types of PFAS, and the second designated PFOA and PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers, as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Both rules are currently being challenged in court, although no judicial stays were requested or are in place.

On April 8,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael S. Regan signed a final rule regulating six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The final rule, which will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, sets individual maximum contaminant levels…

On November 20, with no fanfare at all, not even a press release, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Draft Guidance: Applying the Supreme Court’s County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund Decision in the Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program to Discharges Through Groundwater. This draft guidance is the agency’s second effort to guide implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision, which extends applicability of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program to include the “functional equivalent” of point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S.

On October 7, 2023, California Governor Newsom signed two landmark bills into law, Senate Bill (SB) 253 and SB-261, imposing new requirements on large companies doing business in California to publicly report their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. These laws apply to both publicly traded and privately held companies, exceeding the scope of the climate disclosure rule proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 2022. Our professionals have prepared a more detailed summary here; some key highlights are included below.

On March 13, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the long-anticipated step of proposing maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), as well as individual maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for six PFAS compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act. PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals that have been in use since the 1940s. Many PFAS have unique physical and chemical properties that make them highly stable and resistant to degradation in the environment, which is why they are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals.”

On January 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new interpretation of its coal combustion residual (CCR) regulations: CCR landfills or surface impoundments “cannot be closed with coal ash in contact with groundwater.” Although EPA claims it has “consistently held” this interpretation, this is the first time EPA has expressly articulated this view. Perhaps acknowledging the novelty of its position, EPA also announced its intent to “review … state-level CCR program applications to ensure they are as protective as federal regulations” and to proceed toward a federal CCR permitting framework.

Landowners and permit applicants received an email notification this week that the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) would not be processing their requests for coverage under a variety of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs). NWPs are general permits that authorize activities under Clean Water Act Section 404 that “will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.” CWA Section 404 (e)(1).