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.

Effective February 3, 2025, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) adopted amendments to the Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS), N.J.A.C. 7:9C. The amendments updated the groundwater quality criteria and/or practical quantitation levels (PQLs) for 73 constituents, the vast majority of which became more stringent. For example, groundwater quality standards for tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride were changed from 1 µg/l to 0.4 µg/l and 0.035 µg/l, respectively. Of note, the decrease attributable to vinyl chloride is by more than an order of magnitude – a significant and regulatorily meaningful change. NJDEP also amended its rounding protocols to round new or revised groundwater standards to two significant figures rather than one. The amendments enable NJDEP to update specific groundwater criteria for constituents with corresponding Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) when NJDEP determines the weight of evidence approach would more appropriately address risks posed by such constituents than the health-based levels used to establish MCLs.

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.

Companies following the ongoing legal challenge to California’s climate disclosure laws in hopes that the court would strike down or limit the scope of these laws will be disappointed by the order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 3, 2025. The order dismissed constitutional challenges levied against SB 253, which requires large companies “doing business” in California to annually report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and SB 261, which requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks. The ruling clears the path for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop implementing regulations for SB 253, which are statutorily required to be issued by July 1, 2025.

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.

Among President Donald Trump’s directives issued on his first day in office was a Presidential Memorandum targeting wind energy, which has been a significant source of new electricity generation in the United States over the past decade, totaling around 10% of utility-scale generation. Among other things, the Memorandum “temporarily” withdraws…