On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published a list of entities it believes may be subject to the state’s climate disclosure laws, Senate Bill (SB) 253 and SB 261, which require companies “doing business in California” and meeting certain revenue thresholds to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions (SB 253) and climate-related financial risks (SB 261). Both laws require disclosing entities to pay CARB annual implementation fees. The preliminary list is “intended to support development of the fee regulation” according to CARB‘s announcement. However, the list is generating surprise and confusion among the regulated (and non-regulated) community, some of whom expected to find themselves on the list, and others who did not. Adding to the confusion, CARB made clear that the list includes entities that, at least under its initial staff concepts, would be exempt from the laws; the list also appears to include insurance companies that may be statutorily exempt from SB 261.

As the January 1, 2026, deadline to make the first required disclosure under California’s landmark climate laws approaches, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has announced that it will host another virtual public workshop on August 21 to discuss its ongoing efforts to develop regulations implementing California Senate Bills (SBs) 253 and 261. SB 253 (updated by SB 219) and SB 261, which are now codified in Sections 38532 and 38533 of the California Health and Safety Code, mandate certain entities to disclose climate-related financial risks by January 1, 2026, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a date to be determined later in 2026. As CARB announced in its May 29, 2025, workshop, the agency does not intend to issue draft regulations until the end of the year, despite SB 219’s July 1, 2025, deadline. This has left many companies potentially affected by those regulations in the dark regarding whether they will be required to make disclosures. CARB’s August 21 workshop may finally provide clarity on some of the key applicability questions that remain unanswered as these 2026 disclosure deadlines loom.

In a significant victory for the hydropower industry, last week the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an order in Cascadia Wildlands v. EWEB (Case No. 6:25-00446), reaffirming that the U.S. courts of appeals, on review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), have exclusive jurisdiction over controversies related to fish passage and other environmental measures included in hydropower licenses issued by FERC. This decision adds to precedent making clear that project opponents may not collaterally attack fish passage conditions in FERC licenses via citizen suits filed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The frenetic pace of anti-renewable actions from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has continued into this week with the issuance of a new memorandum from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff for policy, directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ratchet up enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) against wind energy projects, and to scrutinize the eagle permit program that the FWS adopted in 2024 after many years of development.

During the week of July 28, the Trump administration unleashed a new burst of actions aimed squarely at blocking wind and solar energy with the announcement of two new secretarial orders (SO) and three new policies by the Department of the Interior (DOI), plus one from the Department of Transportation (DOT). These latest measures follow on the heels of the recent internal directive from DOI Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer implementing three new levels of political review for a comprehensive list of approvals, consultations, and interim steps in the permitting processes for wind and solar projects with a nexus to DOI’s regulatory authority. Although couched in terms of curbing “preferential treatment” for wind energy, the measures go well beyond any leveling of the playing field, instead significantly disadvantaging wind and solar — which the DOI refers to as “foreign-controlled energy sources” — compared to other sources of energy or uses of public lands.

On July 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to its efforts to implement California’s landmark climate disclosure laws, SB 253 (requiring reporting of GHG emissions) and SB 261 (requiring disclosure of climate-related financial risks). Although draft implementing regulations are not anticipated before December 2025, public and private companies subject to the laws’ requirements face their first compliance deadlines beginning January 1, 2026.

On July 3, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a final rule revising its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to remove references to the recently rescinded regulations implementing NEPA originally promulgated in 1978 by the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). On the same day, FERC issued an order adopting two categorical exclusions under NEPA for certain hydropower-related activities.

On June 17, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule to approve Texas’s application for primary permitting and enforcement responsibility (primacy) for carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration wells pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. Upon approval of the rule, the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) will have permitting and enforcement authority for the Class VI UIC program (with oversight from the EPA). This development is the culmination of lengthy negotiations between the state of Texas and the EPA, which we have previously discussed in more detail.

Much has been written in recent weeks about how the renewable energy industry in Texas dodged a bullet — several bullets actually — when three high-profile bills targeting the industry failed to pass in the recent legislative session that ended June 2. Indeed, each of those bills, S.B. 819, S.B. 388, and S.B. 715, would have had a substantial negative impact on renewable energy projects in Texas. For all the attention those bills garnered, however, and the justifiable relief felt by the industry after all three failed to pass, seemingly little attention has been paid to another bill, H.B. 3556, that did pass and was signed into law by Governor Abbot on June 22. This new law poses a serious threat to the prospects for future wind projects along the Texas coast.

On Monday, June 9, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) opened a short, 30-day public comment period soliciting information and comments to, “improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness” of Section 10(a) take permitting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If it seems like Section 10(a) just underwent a comment period not too long ago, that’s because it did. In 2023, under the Biden Administration, FWS solicited comments on proposed revisions to the regulations implementing that section, which were finalized last April. Now, the Trump Administration is seeking suggestions on how to further revise its ESA permitting rules.