EU: Commission publishes Steel and Metal Action Plan and Transition Pathway for the metals sectors

On 19 March 2025, the European Commission published an Action Plan to secure a competitive and decarbonised steel and metal industry in Europe, accompanied by a press release, FAQ and Factsheet. Although it is non-legislative, it outlines the EU’s intentions for the sector. The Action Plan for Steel and Metals builds on the Clean Industrial Deal (CID) and the Action Plan for Affordable Energy (for more details, see our previous blog post).

The Action Plan encourages faster grid access for energy-intensive industries, supports the sector’s use of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen, and envisages extending CBAM in Q4 2025 to steel and aluminium-based downstream products. It also mentions introducing an extended trade safeguard for steel by Q4 2025. The Commission plans to set targets for recycled steel and aluminium in key sectors and considers introducing trade measures on scrap metal.

In the CID, the Commission highlighted the development of sectoral transition pathways in dialogue with industries, alongside sector-specific action plans. The Transition Pathway for the metals sectors, published on 19 March, is the second after the automotive industry action plan released on 5 March 2025. It identifies actions proposed by stakeholders to ensure a successful green and digital transition for the metals sectors, involving the creation of a Commission expert group and high-level political dialogue for implementation monitoring.

EU: Status of the “Stop the clock” Omnibus proposal

On 26 March 2025, the European Council reached its negotiating position on the “Stop the Clock” proposal, supporting the Commission’s initial proposal which postpones the dates of application of certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements, as well as the transposition deadline of the due diligence provisions. The proposal forms part of the Omnibus I package adopted by the Commission on 26 February 2025 to simplify EU sustainability legislation. The Commission proposes to postpone (i) by two years the entry into application of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requirements for large companies that have not yet started reporting, as well as listed SMEs, and (ii) by one year the transposition deadline and the first phase of the application (covering the largest companies) of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

The European Parliament voted on 1 April to use the urgent procedure on the “Stop the Clock” proposal (see EP press release). There will now be a vote in the European Parliament on Thursday 3 April on whether to accept the “Stop the Clock” proposal. MEPs are able to propose amendments to the Commission’s proposal before the vote on Thursday.

If MEPs endorse the Commission’s proposal (without any changes) on Thursday, it is likely the proposal would then only need formal approval by the Council before it can be finalised. It would then need to be published in the Official Journal of the EU before it can come into force and before Member States can start the process of transposing it into national law.

If MEPs vote in favour of any changes to the Commission’s proposal on Thursday, there would need to be negotiations (known as “trilogues”) between the Parliament and Council on those changes.

For further details on the Omnibus Package, see our blog post.

EU CSRD: Commission mandates EFRAG to simplify ESRS

On 28 March 2025, Maria Luís Albuquerque, Commissioner for Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union, sent EFRAG a letter outlining the European Commission's request for EFRAG to simplify the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) - as part of its Omnibus simplification plans. According to the letter, when simplifying the existing ESRS, EFRAG should be guided by the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Omnibus proposals. The Commission has asked EFRAG to start the process of simplifying the ESRS “as soon as possible” and to inform the Commission by 15 April 2025 about its internal timeline and work plan, with the aim to deliver EFRAG’s advice by 31 October 2025. For more details, see our blog post.

Global: LMA publishes updated Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles, Green Loan Principles and Social Loan Principles

On 26 March 2025, the Loan Market Association (LMA) published updated versions of the Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles, Green Loan Principles and Social Loan Principles together with revised accompanying Guidance for each product. The changes include the introduction of a new “Interpretation of Terms” section, which is intended to clarify when the terminology used should be interpreted to mean, for example, a mandatory requirement, a recommendation or an optional course of action.

Global: COP16 - Key takeaways from the final negotiations in Rome in 2025

The 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (“COP16”) took place in Colombia from 21 October to 2 November 2024 but closed before final decisions could be reached on several issues including finance. COP16 reconvened in Rome on 25-27 February 2025 to continue discussions on how to finance the Global Biodiversity Framework (“GBF”) goals and whether a new fund should be established to support financing. Ultimately countries agreed to a new strategy for mobilising US$200 billion a year by 2030 to help countries halt the decline of nature, address biodiversity loss, and achieve the targets of the GBF. For more information, see our blog post.

UK reporting 2024/25 – recent developments and guidance for large unlisted companies and LLPs

We have published our annual reporting guide for UK large unlisted companies and LLPs. The guide aims to help large unlisted UK companies and LLPs prepare their 2024/25 annual reports by summarising recent developments and regulatory guidance. It also looks ahead to regulatory developments that are expected to affect annual reports in future years. It includes sections on climate reporting and corporate governance, as well as a section on developments that will affect reporting in the near future, including UK sustainability reporting standards and transition plans.

We have an equivalent guide for UK listed companies – see here.

UK: what can business in the UK expect from the CMA on greenwashing

The consumer protection provisions in the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) will come into force on 6 April (except for specific provisions relating to subscription contracts). From this date, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will have strengthened powers to determine whether consumer protection laws have been breached and take direct action to address those breaches (including via fines of up to 10% of global turnover), without needing to take businesses to court. Given the CMA’s previous stance on tackling greenwashing (among other consumer issues), now is a good time for businesses to make sure that they remain in the “green” come April. For more details, see our blog post.

UK: Mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting

On 18 March 2025, the UK government launched a consultation on introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting for employers with 250 or more employees. The consultation follows a commitment made by the government last year to extending mandatory pay gap reporting beyond gender. The new rules are set to be introduced in due course as part of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. The consultation closes on 10 June 2025 and the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill is awaited. See our blog post for the key points from the consultation on the proposed framework.

Japan issues its sustainability disclosure standards which incorporates key elements of the ISSB standards

On 5 March 2025, the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan issued its inaugural sustainability disclosure standards which incorporates key elements of the sustainability disclosure standards published by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to ensure international comparability in sustainability-related financial disclosures. For more information, see our blog post.

Japan amends the order on reporting of GHG emissions

On 3 March 2025, the amendment to the Order on Reporting of GHG Emissions became effective whereby the method of reporting GHG emissions was changed so that, in summary, specific emitters must calculate the base emission amount taking J-Credits (kokunai ninshou haishutsu sakugen ryou tou) into account; direct and indirect emissions need to be reported separately; and the quantity of CO2 which is captured by the emitters themselves and how such captured CO2 is utilised (e.g., production of e-fuel) can be reported. The amendment is scheduled to take effect on 1 April 2025.

Hong Kong Monetary Authority issues results of climate risk stress test 2.0

On 28 February 2025, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued a circular to Authorised Institutions (AIs) in Hong Kong with the results of the second round of the sector-wide Climate Risk Stress Test (CRST 2.0). Forty-six AIs accounting for over 90% of the banking sector’s total lending participated in the exercise and assessed their climate risk exposures under two scenarios: (i) a short-term scenario featuring simultaneous climate-related shocks and an economic downturn, and (ii) three long-term scenarios with different transition pathways. The results of the exercise indicate that “the Hong Kong banking sector demonstrates strong resilience against severe climate-related shocks under various scenarios”. The HKMA has stated that it will continue to provide supervisory guidance and feedback to industry, supporting AIs’ efforts in climate-related risk management under the Sustainable Finance Action Agenda.

Hong Kong Monetary Authority revises supervisory policy manual on pillar 2 capital to address climate-related financial risk

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has updated its Supervisory Policy Manual module on the supervisory review process (SRP) to determine banks’ Pillar 2 capital requirements, incorporating Basel III reforms and accounting for climate-related financial risks. The amendments encourage banks to integrate climate risks into their business strategies, risk management frameworks, and internal controls. If banks fail to address these risks adequately, additional Pillar 2 capital charges could be imposed. However, provisions concerning climate-related risks will not take effect until January 2026 at the earliest, allowing banks time to adjust for compliance.

Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority enhances disclosure requirements for ESG constituent funds

On 24 February 2025, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) issued guidance on the approval criteria for funds to be included in MPFs, setting out requirements for ESG funds to meet in order to be considered for approval. The guidance includes information on how the disclosure requirements under the Code on Disclosure for MPF Investment Funds apply to ESG funds available under MPF schemes. Where ESG funds are already included in MPFs, MPF trustees need to review the current disclosures in MPF scheme brochures in view of the requirements in this guidance, and make necessary updates and revisions as soon as possible, and in any event no later than 30 September 2025.

China allocates special funds for clean energy development

On 3 March 2025, China’s Ministry of Finance released the Administrative Measures for Special Funds for Clean Energy Development (Measures) with immediate effect. The Measures renew and replace the previous interim measures. The special funds consist of central government financial resources allocated to support the development and use of clean energy. Under the Measures, special funds will be used to promote key technologies, build capacity for large-scale development and utilisation, construct public platforms, and demonstrate comprehensive application of clean energy. The funds will be allocated through competitive distribution, rewards, and settlement based on actual expenditures. The Measures underscore China's continuous commitment to the development and construction of clean energy. With support from the special funds, clean energy enterprises can further invest in production and research, enhancing their competitiveness in the market.

China’s four ministries jointly issue opinions on voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas information

On 21 February 2025, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and three other ministries jointly released the Opinions on Promoting Enterprise Voluntary Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Information (Opinions). The Opinions provide guidance for voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas information by enterprises primarily in six areas: technical standards, formats and channels, application scenarios, third-party involvement, pilot regions and industries, and international cooperation. The Opinions task the government with issuing more implementation guidance to standardise voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas information. With effective implementation of the Opinions, the government will establish policy systems and technical standards by 2027 for such disclosure.

Federal Agency Actions

On 27 March 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) voted to end its defense of its rules, The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, which would have required SEC registrants to make certain climate-related disclosures. The rules were adopted by the agency on 6 March 2024, followed by a flurry of legal challenges. In April 2024, the SEC decided to voluntarily stay implementation of the disclosure rules pending ongoing litigation. You can read more about the SEC rule and developments in the legal challenges in our client alert, blog post and April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024 newsletters.

On 14 March 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board granted a motion for voluntary remand filed by EPA Region 2 of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Clean Air Act (CAA) permit issued by EPA Region 2 to Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project 1, LLC (Atlantic Shores). The OCS CAA permit authorizes Atlantic Shores to construct and operate two wind energy generation projects off the coast of New Jersey—Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind Project 1 and 2. EPA Region 2 filed the motion to reevaluate both projects and their environmental impacts in light of President Trump’s Executive Memorandum issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects” which, among other things, directs EPA to halt issuing new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for all onshore and offshore wind projects until the Secretary of the Interior completes an assessment of current federal wind leasing and permitting practices’ environmental impacts on wildlife and the economic costs associated with the generation of electricity and the subsidies provided to the wind industry (see our prior article here for further details on same).

On the same day, SEC announced a 6-month extension of compliance dates for amendments to the Investment Company Act “Names Rule”. The Names Rule addresses fund names “likely to mislead investors about a fund’s investments and risks.” The compliance date for larger fund groups (> USD $1 billion in net assets) is now 11 June 2026, and the compliance date for smaller fund groups (< USD $1 billion in net assets) is now 11 December 2026. The Names Rule amendments were adopted in September 2023 and would require funds to invest 80% of a fund’s assets into investments aligned with a fund’s name if the name suggests a focus on a particular type of investment. For example, funds with names suggesting a focus on factors related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG), such as “sustainable”, “green”, or “socially responsible”, would be required to invest at least 80% of their assets into investments consistent with the names’ suggestion.

On 12 March 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced 31 separate deregulatory actions EPA plans to take over the coming months in response to various executive actions issued by the Trump administration (see our February 2025 ESG Newsletter here for summaries of same). This marks one of the most significant compilations of deregulatory actions in EPA’s history and is part of EPA’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative. Most of the deregulatory actions involve reconsidering EPA rules adopted by the Biden administration and others that pre-date the Biden administration. Some of the most significant of these deregulatory actions include, but are not limited to, reconsidering: (1) Biden administration regulations on power plants to reduce carbon emissions (Clean Power Plan 2.0); (2) Biden administration regulations on light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations that provided the foundation for the Biden administration’s electric vehicle mandate; and (3) the Obama administration’s “endangerment finding” from 2009 that greenhouse gases (GHGs) (particularly carbon dioxide and methane) endanger public health, which underpins various current EPA GHG regulations.

On the same date, EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a joint memorandum to field staff with a new interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA to clarify the “continuous surface connection” requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for defining “waters of the United States.” The memorandum clarifies that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to jurisdictional waters are considered “adjacent” under CWA jurisdiction, rejecting previous interpretations involving discrete features like ditches or culverts. The agencies also announced a Federal Register notice publicizing a series of six listening sessions and a 30-day recommendations docket to solicit feedback on key aspects of the definition of “waters of the United States.” Next, it is anticipated that EPA and USACE will utilize the rulemaking process to formally revise the definition of “waters of the United States.”

On 11 March 2025, EPA dissolved its environmental justice and civil rights office, which had been in existence for over 30 years. This move aligns with President Trump's directive to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) positions, as well as all environmental justice offices and roles. EPA took steps to terminate environmental justice projects, disable tools like EJScreen for identifying vulnerable communities, and reassign employees.

Presidential Actions

On 20 March 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production”, which invokes various federal statutory authorities to prioritize and bolster production of critical minerals, uranium, copper, potash, gold, and any other element, compound, or material as determined by the Chair of the National Energy Dominance Council (which was established by President Trump via a separate Executive Order titled “Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council” issued on 14 February 2025). Some key presidential actions from the Executive Order are to: (1) identify or prioritize mineral production projects and federal lands with mineral deposits or reserves; (2) streamline permitting and financing processes for mineral production projects; (3) invoke various presidential authorities under the Defense Production Act to accelerate private and public capital investment in mineral production; and (4) direct various federal agencies to submit recommendations for changes to dealing with waste rock and tailings under the Mining Act of 1872.

On 25 February 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Memorandum suspending security clearances for members of a U.S. multinational law firm, citing their impartiality in providing free legal services relating to two criminal investigations into the President by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). This action also initiated a comprehensive review of all federal contracts with the firm.

This was the first of four actions regarding major law firms, with the subsequent two placing a lens on the firms’ DEI practices, though one of these orders was withdrawn on 20 March 2025 following an agreement between the President and the firm.

Climate Change Litigation

On 24 March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected youth climate activist’s petition for cert. In the petition, the petitioners request the Court reinstate their lawsuit, seeking to enjoin the federal government to take steps to address climate change. The Ninth Circuit appellate court rejected the youth’s claim stating that the youth did not have standing because they failed to assert a concrete injury. This case has resulted in 10 years of litigation.

On 11 March 2025, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit against New York City pension plans. The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit claimed that the city pension plans breached their fiduciary duties by implementing pro-ESG criteria in the management of the funds. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the plans’ divestment from fossil fuel companies undermined the return of investment, a decision they claimed was contrary to the goal of maximizing returns. The appellate panel reaffirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing, because all beneficiaries of the plan received fixed monthly payments that did not fluctuate based on investment decisions.

On 10 March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) denied a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed by 19 states against five states that had previously sued fossil fuel companies, claiming that the companies failed to properly disclose the climate risks associated with the companies’ production and use of fossil fuels. Although SCOTUS did not provide a reason for denying the states’ writ of certiorari, Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over this exact type of dispute between the states.

Anti-ESG Actions

On 12 March 2025, a member of the Senate Banking Committee introduced a bill entitled “Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets (PROTECT USA) Act of 2025”, which would prohibit certain entities that are considered integral to the national interests from complying with any foreign sustainability due diligence regulations, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) of the European Union (EU). The CSDDD, which was adopted in May 2024, includes new regulations that would require U.S. companies to comply with the EU’s “net zero” carbon emissions target and would impose severe penalties for violations, which proponents of the Senate bill claim exceeds the requirements of U.S. law and promotes regulatory overreach.

On the same day, the North Carolina House Agriculture and Environment Committee voted to approve HB 62, the “Farmers Protection Act.” If passed, the bill would prohibit banks with ESG commitments from denying services to farmers based on their GHG emissions, use of fossil fuel derived fertilizer, or use of fossil fuel powered machinery. Violations of the bill would result in civil penalties of up to USD $10,000 per violation.

DEI Developments and Litigation

On 17 March 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their DEI-related employment practices. The 40 questions cover a broad range of topics, namely (1) hiring and compensation practices as they relate to seeking “diverse” candidates; (2) information on clients’ demographic-related requirements for matters; (3) partnership decisions in connection with DEI or diversity considerations; and (4) internships, fellowships, and scholarships as they relate to DEI. The letters express concern that these programs are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, noting that they may create unequal treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Also in March, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed enforcement of a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against enforcement of aspects of President Trump’s executive orders directing federal agencies to defund “illegal” DEI programs. While the justices acknowledged that there is uncertainty in what programs the orders aim to eliminate exactly, they concur that the government has shown sufficient likelihood of success to warrant a stay until the court can hear and decide its appeal. The appeal of the preliminary injunction remains pending.

On 5 March 2025, a civil rights nonprofit and a teacher’s union sued the Department of Education (DoEd) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire after DoEd directed leaders of federally-funded schools to eliminate DEI programming. The lawsuit argues that DoEd overstepped its legal authority by imposing vague legal restrictions in violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause, impermissibly dictating curriculum and education programs, and limiting principles of academic freedom. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to bar enforcement of DoEd’s order and a declaration that this directive is unconstitutional.

On 26 February 2025, a Chicago-based women’s trade group sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claiming that recent Executive Orders targeting federal DEI programs are unconstitutional. The group specifically focuses on two Executive Orders, which we previously covered in our February newsletter, that terminated all DEI-related programs in the federal government and declared programs supporting DEI as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral.” The complaint asserts that President Trump’s actions “chill” free speech, are “unconstitutionally vague”, and dictate spending conditions that Congress has not set—meaning the Executive Orders lack necessary statutory authority to terminate funding. The plaintiff seeks termination of the Executive Orders and an injunction blocking their enforcement.

On 20 February 2025, the State of Florida filed a class action lawsuit against a U.S. retail corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that the company misled investors by promoting “ESG and DEI initiatives” that prompted a boycott and hurt sales in violation of securities laws. The lawsuit targets a 2023 campaign by the store, which drew consumer backlash and caused a drop in the retailer’s stock price. However, in a previous lawsuit, the store already disputed such allegations, stating that it repeatedly warned investors of the risks of its initiatives and that disagreeing with the company’s business judgement does not give rise to an actionable claim under securities laws. The plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages.

Greenwashing Litigation

On 18 March 2025, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a class action lawsuit against an oatmeal brand, which alleged that the brand’s claims of being “healthy” were misleading because of pesticide presence in its products, specifically chlormequat. The ruling held that the detected chemical levels were far below the EPA’s established safety limits.

On 14 March 2025, individual consumers in four separate states (Florida, Idaho, California, and New York) jointly filed a lawsuit against a multinational retail company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, claiming that the retail giant misled consumers into believing that the supply chains of its “Aware” and “Basics” line of paper products contained various sustainable aspects. The company included various climate and environmental logos and badges on its website that the plaintiffs allege were not accurate and were in violation of various guidelines issued by both the Federal Trade Commission and the company itself. The complaint encompasses 48 separate counts, including various state-specific fraud and consumer protection claims. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief temporarily and permanently enjoining the company from continuing such alleged unlawful practices, along with restitution, punitive damages, disgorgement, interest, and attorneys’ fees.

On 5 March 2025, a local resident filed a proposed class action lawsuit against a major sugar company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing it of harmful environmental practices while claiming to be a leader in the fight against climate change. The complaint targets the company’s leaf-burning practices, which the plaintiff claims release substantial volumes of GHGs into the atmosphere, as well as chemical compounds that pollute local water systems and harm other residents. The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief along with additional damages.

On 26 February 2025, a group of plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against a multinational technology company, claiming that the tech giant misled consumers into thinking their smartwatch products were “carbon neutral” without any supporting evidence. The company claimed that it would reduce about 75% of the product’s emissions through various offset initiatives, but the plaintiffs assert that these carbon reductions would have happened regardless of the company’s involvement. Thus, these consumers argue they paid a premium price for products marketed as environmentally superior but received products whose environmental claims are misleading, necessitating damages and a court order blocking claims of carbon neutrality. The plaintiffs seek: (1) class certification; (2) declaratory and injunctive relief; (3) compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; and (4) restitution.

On the same day, the Oregon State Legislature held its first public hearing on a bill to ban greenwashing under the state’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill aims to prohibit entities from publishing an “environmental marketing claim, net zero claim, or reputational advertising that is materially false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent” under a private right of action. If found liable, the defendants would face a fine of USD $200.

EPA Litigation

On 18 March 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that EPA did not provide adequate reasons for canceling USD $20 billion in congressionally-approved grant funding from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to organizations spearheading climate change projects. The court partially granted the three nonprofit plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants from continuing the termination process pending a determination on the merits, including transfer or reallocation of the granted funds. However, the court stopped short of ordering the money to be released back to the plaintiffs.

On 10 March 2025, several environmental and public health groups petitioned the D.C. Circuit to compel EPA to regulate radioactive waste from phosphate mining and fertilizer production, which is currently exempt from federal regulation. These groups contend that EPA has ignored a 2021 request to reconsider a 1991 decision excluding phosphogypsum and process wastewater from hazardous waste regulation. The groups assert that EPA is neglecting its responsibilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and request that the court mandate a response within six months of their petition. They previously alerted EPA of their intent to sue in February 2024.

On 7 March 2025, EPA decided to dismiss a CAA lawsuit against a neoprene manufacturer, citing efforts to end “radical DEI programs” and “ideological overreach.” The lawsuit, initiated by EPA, targeted the neoprene manufacturer's air emissions, alleging health threats to nearby communities. Initially filed in February 2023, EPA used its emergency powers under Section 303 of the CAA due to concerns about chloroprene emissions from a facility in Louisiana. The complaint highlighted an “increased risk of harm after prolonged exposure.”

On 3 March 2025, SCOTUS ruled that “end-result” requirements usually contained in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by EPA pursuant to the CWA exceed EPA’s authority under the CWA. “End-result” NPDES permit requirements are those that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing but instead make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants. In its majority opinion, SCOTUS held that such "end-result" requirements both lack the specificity to achieve compliance that the CWA at Section 1311(b)(1)(C) requires and run afoul of Congress's intent when it passed the CWA in 1972. SCOTUS further held that EPA instead must be specific in the NPDES permits it issues about what permittees can and cannot do, such as by imposing limits on each specific pollutant released by a facility.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

What the EU's first Omnibus package means for financial services firms: watch the recording

From greenwashing to greenhushing: regulatory trends in the EU and Belgium: watch the recording

Global Energy Transition Webinar: Future of offshore wind: watch the recording 

EU: Clean Industrial Deal Deep Dive: the role of carbon capture, storage, and utilisation in enhancing competitiveness and achieving decarbonisation goals: read our briefing 

Powering data centres – from atoms to bytes: read our briefing