Dave Curran, executive director of the ESG + Law Institute and co-chair of the Paul, Weiss ESG Advisory Practice, was a featured guest on the fourth episode of Practising Law Institute’s Fast Tracked: Emergent Issues in the Legal Profession podcast.

In the episode, “The Evolving State of ESG Initiatives,” Dave discusses ESG initiatives in the

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) filed suit against a company alleging that it was violating an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”). What made the lawsuit unusual was that ADEQ also sued 3 individual officers of the company, alleging that because the company was small, the individual Officers and Board members were each “operators” and

Massachusetts has become the first state to require analysis of cumulative impacts for certain air quality permits in or near communities with environmental justice (EJ) populations. On March 29, 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) released highly anticipated amendments to its air pollution regulations as required by the environmental justice provisions of the

In a partially published opinion filed March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) rejected contentions that the pre-judgment completion of construction of a shooting range mooted a CEQA challenge to the project; it held an effective remedy in the form of various mitigation measures alleged in the CEQA petition remained available and reversed the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of respondents and real party after sustaining their demurrers and granting their motions to strike and for judgment on the pleadings.  In addition to applying established mootness principles, the Court resolved a number of other issues in holding petitioner Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. (“Vichy”) had sufficiently alleged a CEQA claim at the pleadings stage against both the City of Ukiah (“City”) and the County of Mendocino (“County”) in a unique factual and legal context presenting novel issues of land use regulatory authority and intergovernmental immunity.  Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah, et al. (Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., Real Party in Interest) (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46.

On May 10, 2024, extensive revisions recently adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations (40 CFR Part 68) will take effect. The revisions, dubbed by EPA as the “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule,” reinstate certain Obama-era provisions previously rolled back under the Trump administration. However, the revisions also enlarge some of these provisions and add significant new requirements, including some that reflect the current administration’s focus on climate change and environmental justice.

The revisions require owners and operators of subject facilities to achieve compliance with most of the substantive requirements within three years (i.e., by May 10, 2027). RMP plans must be updated to reflect new applicable requirements and resubmitted to EPA within four years (i.e., by May 10, 2028). For certain other requirements (regarding emergency response field exercises), the compliance deadline is potentially shorter or longer than these three- and four-year periods, depending on the date of the facility’s most recent field exercise.

Once the rule takes effect, court challenges by both business interests and environmental groups are expected. However, given the unknown outcome of such challenges and the breadth and potential costs of the new requirements, potentially impacted facilities should begin assessing the applicability of the revisions now.

Background

The RMP regulations implement Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)), which direct EPA to develop regulations to improve the prevention of chemical accidents at stationary facilities or activities (for brevity, referred to here simply as “facilities”) that use or store “regulated substances” that EPA has identified as presenting the greatest risk of harm from accidental releases. In particular, the owner and operator of a facility with one or more “processes” that manufactures, uses, stores, or handles such a regulated substance in excess of substance-specific threshold quantities must develop and implement a risk management program for all such processes, and document that program in a risk management plan submitted to EPA.

RMP requirements are generally similar to, and in some respects will overlap with, requirements under the Process Safety Management (PSM) program administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). However, while OSHA’s PSM regulations focus on workplace safety, the RMP regulations focus primarily on minimizing the public impacts of accidental releases through prevention and emergency response.

Tax season is here. As a result, many companies may be seeking to claim the increased tax credits and deductions available under the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”). As we discussed in previous posts you can read here and here, many of the IRA’s tax credits and deductions for various clean energy projects are available only to taxpayers whose projects complied with nuanced and complex prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (the “PWA Requirements”). These requirements must be met before a taxpayer files a return claiming credits and deductions under the IRA.

On March 5, 2024, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a “political agreement” on a Regulation prohibiting products made with forced labour (“the EU Forced Labour Regulation” or “the EUFLR“) on the European Union (“EU“) market (see Insight of 6 March 2024 hhttps://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2024/03/eu-political-agreement-on-forced-labor-product-ban). The EUFLR