Energy Law

If you are the general counsel of a Fortune 500 company, you might be excused if you express bewilderment in response to reports about the successes of U.S. “tort reform.” In the past 5-8 years, both the plaintiffs’ bar and governmental authorities seem to have added an extra digit to…

Continue Reading Dealing with an Extra Digit: Latest Developments in Excess Liability Insurance Coverage and “Bermuda Form” Arbitrations for Catastrophic Exposures

While the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is proposing to amend the federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (“GHGRP”) to remove reporting requirements for nearly all sources, it remains important for companies to track developments and manage their compliance obligations with existing and emerging state GHG reporting programs.  Several states, such as California, already have some form of mandatory GHG reporting in place.  Others are introducing similar programs to take effect over the next several years.

In particular, New York is expected to finalize a rule establishing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.  The state announced its proposal in spring 2025 and public comments closed on July 1.  New York’s program appears to be similar to both the federal GHGRP (which EPA will likely roll back) and California’s Mandatory Reporting Regulation (“MRR”) and applies to companies with significant direct emissions from facilities located in New York state and fuels and electricity consumed within the state.  This blog post provides an overview of New York’s proposed program and compares it with California’s MRR.  Continue Reading State Greenhouse Gas Reporting Programs: New York’s Proposed Mandatory Reporting Program and California’s Existing Program

Though the 2nd Trump Administration has dramatically turned away from the energy and industrial policies of the Biden Administration, private-sector proponents of advanced energy projects may still find opportunities to partner with the federal government on certain Research and Development (R&D) or commercialization projects in the energy sector. 

Since January 2025, nearly all corners of the federal government have sought to terminate federal grants, loans, and contracts that the Trump Administration has determined are out of step with the government’s revised priorities (such as in the case of various clean energy focused programs or decarbonization initiatives).  Nonetheless, federal agencies have also announced new initiatives providing both financial and non-financial benefits for energy projects that the Trump Administration continues to support.  In particular, there are significant opportunities available for developers of nuclear energy, critical minerals, and geothermal projects, as detailed further below.  Continue Reading Opportunities for Advanced Energy Partnerships in the 2nd Trump Administration

The Spanish Ministry for Ecologic Transition and Demographic Challenge (“MITECO”) has launched a public consultation on a Draft Royal Decree (“Draft Royal Decree”) that would impose strict energy efficiency and sustainability requirements on data centers in Spain.  The proposed requirements of the Draft Royal Decree are broader and stricter than the requirements on data centers set out in the EU’s Directive (EU) 2023/1791 (the “Energy Efficiency Directive” or “EED”) that the Draft Royal Decree aims to transpose.  Among other things, the Draft Royal Decree imposes requirements to report on the socio-economic impact of data centers; and to comply with the European Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency (“EU CoC”), and with industry best practices.  The Draft Royal Decree is subject to an ongoing public consultation and interested parties may submit their comments until September 15, 2025.

In this blog post we outline the requirements of the Draft Royal Decree that are stricter than those of the EED.Continue Reading Spain Proposes Strict Sustainability Requirements for Data Centers

This client alert summarizes recent developments related to implementation of California’s climate disclosure laws, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261). These key developments underscore the necessity of preparing for compliance by the operative deadlines: January 1, 2026…

Continue Reading Litigation and Implementation Updates on California Climate Disclosure Laws (SB 253 and SB 261)

On May 12, the Federal Register put on public inspection a group of 42 proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy.  The rules cover a wide variety of topics, ranging from energy efficiency standards to biofuel production to the conditions attached to grants from the Department.  Many of these rules are notable for the extreme brevity of their analysis.  Taken together, these proposed and final rules offer one of our first windows into the way the new Trump administration intends to expedite the rulemaking process.

The Federal Register generally must put documents it intends to publish on public display a few days before publication.  On May 12, the virtual public inspection window was mostly taken up with proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy.  DoEoffered for display 29 proposed rules and 13 direct final rules.  (The Register also displayed a fourteenth DoE direct final rule that the agency subsequently withdrew.)

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that notices of proposed rulemaking include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.”[1]  Courts have interpreted section 553 to require agencies to provide sufficient detail about their proposed rules for the public to comment intelligently on them.  Similarly, final rules issued under the Administrative Procedure Act must contain “a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.”[2]  Case law requires that statements of basis and purpose contain sufficient detail for courts to conduct “hard look” review under 5 U.S.C. 706’s arbitrariness standard, assessing whether agencies have adequate reasons for the regulations they adopt.Continue Reading Department of Energy Rulemakings Show What’s in Store under Trump’s Deregulatory Initiative

Authors: Jennifer Johnson, Jayne Ponder, August Gweon, Analese Bridges

State lawmakers are considering a diverse array of AI legislation, with hundreds of bills introduced in 2025.  As described further in this blog post, many of these AI legislative proposals fall into several key categories: (1) comprehensive consumer protection legislation similar to the Colorado AI Act, (2) sector-specific legislation on automated decision-making, (3) chatbot regulation, (4) generative AI transparency requirements, (5) AI data center and energy usage requirements, and (6) frontier model public safety legislation.  Although these categories represent just a subset of current AI legislative activity, they illustrate the major priorities of state legislatures and highlight new AI laws that may be on the horizon.

  • Consumer Protection.  Lawmakers in over a dozen states have introduced legislation aimed at reducing algorithmic discrimination in high-risk AI or automated decision-making systems used to make “consequential decisions,” embracing the risk- and role-based approach of the Colorado AI Act.  In general, these frameworks would establish developer and deployer duties of care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination and would require risks or instances of algorithmic discrimination to be reported to state attorneys general.  They would also require notices to consumers and disclosures to other parties and establish consumer rights related to the AI system.  For example, Virginia’s High-Risk AI Developer & Deployer Act (HB 2094), which follows this approach, passed out of Virginia’s legislature this month.
  • Sector-Specific Automated Decision-making.  Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that would regulate the use of AI or automated decision-making tools (“ADMT”) in specific sectors, including healthcare, insurance, employment, and finance.  For example, Massachusetts HD 3750 would amend the state’s health insurance consumer protection law to require healthcare insurance carriers to disclose the use of AI or ADMT for reviewing insurance claims and report AI and training data information to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.  Other bills would regulate the use of ADMT in the financial sector, such as New York A773, which would require banks that use ADMT for lending decisions to conduct annual disparate impact analyses and disclose such analyses to the New York Attorney General.  Relatedly, state legislatures are considering a wide range of approaches to regulating employers’ uses of AI and ADMT.  For example, Georgia SB 164 and Illinois SB 2255 would both prohibit employers from using ADMT to set wages unless certain requirements are satisfied.

Continue Reading Blog Post: State Legislatures Consider New Wave of 2025 AI Legislation

Barely noticed in the firehose stream of presidential activity since the inauguration was a brief Oval Office mention of cutting a deal with Ukraine for access to its critical minerals. Securing steady access to uranium, the rare earth elements, and other critical minerals is a natural priority for an America First agenda, so President Trump’s February 3 statement is unlikely to be his last. Changes to the tax code, permitting reform, regulatory incentives, and partnerships with allies as well as troubled nations are among the actions to watch for.

A Bipartisan Issue

Leaders of both parties agree that action is needed. “Whether it’s critical minerals with China … or uranium from Russia, we can’t be dependent on them,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Bergum asserted in his confirmation hearing. “We’ve got the resources here. We need to develop them.” Virginia Senator Mark Warner (D, VA) recently charged, “China dominates the critical mineral industry and is actively working to ensure that the U.S. does not catch up.” He urged, “The U.S. must, alongside allies, take meaningful steps to protect and expand our production and procurement of these critical minerals.” President Biden’s State Department was even more blunt, asserting that China is intentionally oversupplying lithium to “lower the price until competition disappears.”

Several recent developments have increased U.S. policymakers’ concerns about future supplies of critical minerals. New technologies, including artificial intelligence, promise to dramatically boost demand. China, meanwhile, is using new export control laws to curtail exports to the United States. A resurgent war in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), ostensibly over tribal rivalries, is actually a fight over the country’s rich mineral resources. These include gold and diamonds, but also coltan, an ore from which tantalum is extracted. Tantalum is extremely valuable for its use in the capacitors found in smartphones, laptops, and medical equipment.

The number of minerals in question (51), the usual number of steps in the production chain (4), and the variety of international agreements, public laws, private initiatives, and emerging technologies add up to a dizzyingly complex set of issues. Nevertheless, the bipartisan alignment evident in the above statements signals that impacted industries should watch closely for fast-moving legislative and regulatory developments.

Market Overview

Critical minerals are essential for a long list of industrial and defense-related needs. Attention is often focused on the 17 ‘rare earth elements,’ (REEs) but the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broader list of 50 mineral commodities that are critical to the nation’s economy and national security. Uranium is excluded by a statutory definition but is often tracked in parallel. Together, these 51 elements are used for a far wider array of products than is often recognized. The 17 REEs alone are also needed for oil refining, guided missiles, radar arrays, MRI machines, computer chips, hydrogen electrolysis, lasers, aluminum manufacturing, cameras, jet engines, satellite manufacturing, and a long list of other advanced applications.Continue Reading What President Trump Might Do on Critical Minerals

On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Department of State intensified sanctions against Russia with new measures targeting Russia’s energy sector. According to the Treasury Department’s press release, these measures are intended “to fulfill the G7 commitment to reduce Russian revenues from energy” and “substantially increase the sanctions risks associated with the Russian oil trade.”

The new U.S. sanctions include a determination by the U.S. Department of the Treasury authorizing the imposition of property-blocking sanctions against any person who is determined by the Treasury Secretary or Secretary of State (in consultation with one another) to operate or have operated in the Russian energy sector, and a determination issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) prohibiting—effective February 27, 2025—the provision of “petroleum services” from the United States or by a U.S. person to any person located in Russia. In addition, OFAC and the U.S. Department of State collectively designated for property-blocking sanctions more than 400 individuals, entities, and vessels from various countries involved in Russia’s energy sector, including two of Russia’s most significant oil producers and exporters—Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom Neft (“Gazprom Neft”) and Surgutneftegas, along with more than two dozen of their subsidiaries. The designations included more than 180 vessels, many of which are part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” of vessels involved in the trade of Russian oil, as well as several Russian energy executives, oil traders, oilfield service providers, and financial and insurance entities associated with Russia’s energy sector. The designations also covered two active Russian liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) projects and a Russian oil project.

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Department of State designated or re-designated under additional sanctions authority nearly 250 individuals and entities for property-blocking sanctions, including actors based in China.

OFAC also issued multiple general licenses related to the above designations, including a general license authorizing until February 27, 2025, transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, their designated subsidiaries, and entities that they own 50 percent or more, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, subject to certain conditions. In addition, OFAC revoked a general license that had authorized transactions with certain vessels subject to U.S. property-blocking sanctions due to their ownership, and amended two existing general licenses. One of these amended general licenses, General License 8L (which supersedes General License 8K), significantly narrows the scope of permissible energy transactions involving certain blocked financial institutions to include only wind-down transactions until March 12, 2025.Continue Reading New U.S. and UK Sanctions, Including Related to Russia’s Energy Sector

On 18 November 2024, the International Energy Agency (“IEA”) published a detailed 163-page Report titled “Recycling of Critical Minerals: Strategies to Scale Up Recycling and Urban Mining” (the “Report”). The Report emphasizes the importance of recycling in securing the supply of essential minerals – such as copper, lithium…

Continue Reading Regulatory Insights from the IEA’s New Report on Recycling Critical Raw Materials