On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an amendment delaying the data submission period for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PFAS reporting rule, which will now begin on April 13, 2026, and end on October 13, 2026. Small manufacturers who report solely as article importers will have until April 13, 2027, to complete their submissions. The EPA stated that this delay is necessary to allow additional time for the development of the reporting software. While no other changes are currently planned, the agency is considering reopening certain aspects of the rule for public comment to accommodate potential modifications before the new deadlines.

The interim final rule, published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2025, became effective immediately but remains open for public comment for 30 days. This is the second delay in the reporting timeline. The original requirement was established in September 2023, mandating manufacturers and importers of PFAS from 2011 to 2022 to submit reports. Initially, the reporting period was scheduled to begin on July 11, 2025, but was postponed to accommodate ongoing preparations.

The initial rule aimed to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on entities involved in the manufacture or import of PFAS, including those in “articles,” as that term is defined by TSCA, for the years between 2011 and 2022. The EPA explained that delays are primarily due to the need for more time to develop necessary data collection tools and that the agency is considering future rule modifications influenced by efforts to deregulate, such as Executive Order 14219. The agency is also responding to petitions from chemical companies seeking to narrow the scope of the current rule and obtain exemptions consistent with standard TSCA 8(a) reporting provisions.

On the heels of an action by states challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to block federal permits for offshore wind development a lawsuit filed by 15 states on May 9, 2025, claims that the administration misapplied the National Emergencies Act in declaring a national energy emergency.  The emergency declaration, announced in a January 20, 2025, executive order, compels federal agencies to accelerate permit approvals for specified energy projects.  The order excludes solar and wind production from its definition of “energy” and as a result those renewable projects are not subject to expedited permitting.  The plaintiff states, led by Washington and including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, allege the emergency order is unlawful and will cause federal agencies to bypass or shorten critical environmental reviews.  In light of the nation’s strong domestic energy production outlook, the states are claiming that the emergency order is a ruse to implement the administration’s policies that favor oil and gas production and undermine renewable and clean energy development.  The complaint alleges that fast-tracking permit approvals for fossil fuel projects favored by the administration poses an imminent harm to critical habitats and will damage precious resources in affected states. 

While a host of energy projects are covered by the order, no federal agency has yet invoked that authority to issue a permit on an accelerated basis. As a result, the lawsuit may be susceptible to challenges based on principles of ripeness and standing. The states also face an uphill battle in disputing emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act, which, like other executive actions, are afforded a high degree of judicial deference. 

In this rapidly evolving dispute over the treatment of renewable energy development under the Trump administration, on May 12, 2025, proposed plaintiff-intervenor the Alliance for Clean Energy New York filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the offshore wind development case pending in federal court in Massachusetts. The Alliance seeks to restrain the Trump administration from imposing an effective ban on wind energy development.

Robinson & Cole’s Environmental, Energy + Telecommunications group will continue to track the battle lines being drawn between the administration and those states that have invested in renewable and clean energy, and how those legal disputes may impact project permitting and development.

On Monday, May 4, 2025, a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed suit in Massachusetts District Court over the Trump administration’s efforts to block federal permits for all offshore wind development. The administration’s policy was announced in a January 20, 2025 executive order placing federal permitting of wind projects on hold while the Interior Department reviews applications for offshore leases. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the executive order unlawful and to prevent federal agencies from taking any measures to block or delay wind projects, claiming the it is baseless and unjustified. Several offshore wind projects are under development, having advanced through the long list of environmental reviews required by federal law, while others are in the regulatory pipeline. The plaintiffs note that the executive order contradicts the administration’s simultaneous declaration of a “national energy emergency,” and undermines efforts by the affected plaintiffs to comply with their renewable energy requirements. 

Notwithstanding the executive order, the offshore wind industry has faced economic headwinds in recent years that have resulted in delays, additional costs, and, in some cases, project cancelations. As a result of economic uncertainty and political hostility, the status of offshore wind projects varies widely – Atlantic Shores (1.5GW) off the coast of New Jersey recently had its air pollution permit invalidated by the EPA; Empire Wind (810MW) off the coast of New York is under a stop order issued by the Interior Department; Beacon Wind (2.5GW) off the coast of New York withdrew a key permit application, citing the need to reevaluate the project design; Vineyard Wind 1 (800MW) off the coast of Massachusetts is on track to complete construction in 2025; New England Wind 1 and 2 (2.6GW) off the coast of Massachusetts is fending off lawsuits to reopen its Clean Air Act permits; Southcoast Wind (2.4GW) off the coast of Massachusetts has announced a construction delay; and Revolution Wind (704MW) off the coast of Rhode Island is progressing.

The jurisdictions involved in the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has unveiled its anticipated strategy for addressing the pervasive issue of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals.” While the announcement provides a broad framework, specific details (particularly regarding potential changes to previous rulemakings under CERCLA and the Safe Drinking Water Act) remain unclear. The EPA’s strategy is built upon three core pillars: strengthening the underlying science; fulfilling statutory obligations and improving communication; and actively building partnerships with stakeholders. However, Administrator Zeldin’s approach largely echoes the core principles outlined in the EPA’s 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, indicating a degree of continuity in the federal government’s focus on these persistent chemicals.

Under the “Strengthening the Science” pillar, the EPA plans to appoint a dedicated lead for PFAS efforts, implement a comprehensive testing strategy under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to seek scientific information informed by hazard characteristics and exposure pathways, and increase efforts to collect air related PFAS data and improve measurement techniques. The agency will also work to identify and address information gaps and provide more frequent, annual updates to the PFAS Destruction and Disposal Guidance.

The “Fulfilling Statutory Obligations and Enhancing Communication” pillar outlines the EPA’s commitment to developing effluent limitations guidelines for PFAS manufacturers and metal finishers, addressing challenges with national primary drinking water regulations, and leveraging RCRA authorities to tackle releases from manufacturing operations. The EPA will also add PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory (an existing direction from Congress), enforce existing Clean Water Act and TSCA limitations, and utilize Safe Drinking Water Act authority to address immediate endangerment. Prioritizing risk-based review of chemicals and implementing TSCA Section 8(a)(7) to collect information “efficiently” are also key aspects. Finally, Zeldin intends to work with Congress and industry to establish a “polluter pays” liability framework, with a reference to protecting “passive receivers.”

Finally, the “Building Partnerships” pillar emphasizes collaboration to advance remediation and cleanup efforts, working with states on risk assessment and tool development, and reviewing comments and determining the path forward regarding PFAS in biosolids risk assessment. The EPA will also aid states and tribes on enforcement, review state air petitions, and support investigations to hold violators accountable.

Although substantially reflective of some Biden-era initiatives, Zeldin’s plan introduces differences, such as an increased emphasis on air emissions and a single agency-wide PFAS lead instead of a council. The reference to TSCA Section 8(a)(7) also suggests potential amendments to the PFAS reporting rule. This initial announcement is presented as the first step, with further actions expected, highlighting Zeldin’s stated commitment to addressing PFAS.

For the last 40 years, the Connecticut Transfer Act has primarily driven the remediation of contaminated property in Connecticut—this will change early next year.

Currently, the Connecticut Transfer Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq.) requires site-wide investigation, and potential remediation, upon the “transfer” of an “establishment” as defined by the Transfer Act. Establishments include specifically identified types of businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, vehicle body repair shops, furniture strippers) and sites or businesses that generated 100 kg of hazardous waste in any one month since November 1980. In other words, the Transfer Act applies to commercial and industrial properties and is triggered by real estate or business transfers rather than actual environmental conditions or ongoing operations. While the Transfer Act has spurred remediation over the years, it has also killed deals. With burdensome requirements triggered by the transfer of an establishment, transfers that would have otherwise occurred were not worth pursuing.

All of that is set to change. In 2020, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act 20-09, which sets up a pivot away from the Transfer Act and toward release-based cleanup regulations (RBCRs). For the last four years, a working group co-convened by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and the Department of Economic Community Development has been working through regulatory concepts and advising DEEP on regulatory text. Early this year, DEEP announced its decision to proceed with the regulatory adoption process and sent the regulatory text to the Legislative Regulation Review Committee for approval. On April 22, 2025, following its second round of review, the Committee approved the regulatory text with minor changes.   

Under the RBCRs, a release must be reported, investigated, and remediated, as needed, once it is discovered, regardless of whether or not the property is an “establishment” and independent of any transfer. The RBCRs will apply to all property in the state (subject to exemptions in certain circumstances) rather than a specific subset of commercial and industrial properties. In an important contrast to the Transfer Act, the RBCRs will track individual releases and will not require site-wide investigations. Once the RBCRs are in effect, new transfers will not trigger the Transfer Act; however, sites already subject to the Transfer Act must still achieve a “verification” (i.e., completion of site-wide investigation and remediation) under its purview.

The RBCRs will become effective on March 1, 2026. While that date feels far in the future, DEEP and stakeholders each need the time to prepare. DEEP will need to prepare forms and guidance so it will be ready to receive release reports beginning on March 1. Parties negotiating business and real estate deals will need to understand the new program and decide whether deals slated for this year (and therefore subject to the Transfer Act) can or should wait for next year. Property owners in Connecticut, particularly those with operations that handle hazardous materials, will need to understand how the new regulations interact with the existing spill reporting regulations to require a more robust remediation of new releases. We will provide more detailed discussions of these topics as the effective date approaches. 

Meanwhile, the Connecticut General Assembly is about to enter the final month of the legislative session. DEEP had announced its intention to pursue statutory tweaks (for example, providing an optional site-wide investigation incentive compatible with the RBCRs) at the beginning of the session. While no relevant bills have been passed yet, there is still time for statutory changes before the program is implemented.  

It has been 50 days since the Trump administration took office, and there remains a tsunami of activity surrounding executive actions and announcements across the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not been spared from deep cuts, office and grant program closures, and a fair amount of confusion.

On March 11, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin directed the agency to eliminate all offices focusing on environmental justice. The move comes in the wake of executive orders signed on inauguration day declaring the end to the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative and directed all federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions. The recent action ends over 30 years of environmental justice work at the EPA by closing the national environmental justice office, along with each of the ten regional environmental justice offices. For the foreseeable future, the environmental justice considerations in environmental permitting and regulations will be starkly absent at the federal level.

Meanwhile, as a result of the February 19, 2025, executive order, the EPA has until April 20, 2025, to review all of their regulations and identify regulations that, among other criteria, are unconstitutional, impose significant costs that outweigh public benefit, or harm the national interest. This comprehensive regulatory review will likely have broad implications for nearly all environmental regulatory programs. For example, just yesterday, Administrator Zeldin announced the EPA’s plan to eliminate 31 separate major environmental regulations. Among the regulations on the chopping block are the greenhouse gas emissions endangerment finding,  the “Good Neighbor Plan,” and several other climate-related standards. As for enforcement priorities, the same executive order instructed all federal agencies to “preserve their limited enforcement resources by generally deprioritizing” enforcement where such enforcement is not based on the “best reading of a statute,” or it goes “beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.”

As for staffing, in February, the EPA had to correct a comment from the President that the EPA would be cutting 65% of its workforce; instead, it clarified that the figure was referencing spending cuts. Undoubtedly, much of those cuts will come from reductions to, or wholesale terminations, of many of the EPA’s traditionally successful and highly lauded grant programs. Just earlier this week the EPA announced its fourth round of cuts, including the cancellation of over 400 grants across nine programs. Then, the next day, the EPA announced it was canceling $20 billion in grants for climate and clean energy programs that had already been frozen. These broad cuts, which came with little or no notice, have left loan and grant applicants and recipients confused and concerned. While not tallied yet, there are sure to be thousands of potential brownfield, resiliency, and energy projects put on hold or terminated. It is anticipated that these cuts will also significantly impact on state and local government funding. It is too early to know whether and how much those gaps will be filled on a state or local level.

There is no sign that the pace of change will be slowing down anytime soon. With these changes, regulatory uncertainty will continue. More so than ever, keeping abreast of these developments and how they may impact operations, projects, or transactions is vitally important to businesses.

In putting together our thoughts on this post, it was hard not to think about the elephant in the room (see what I did there?). The change in administration has already brought significant changes in our nation’s environmental priorities. While time will show us all of the specific ways this will play out in 2025, we are already seeing some trends and can expect others to guide manufacturers as to what the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) landscape might look like over the year.

  1. Rollback of Federal Environmental Regulation and Enforcement

As my partner, Jon Schaefer, reported earlier this month, even before Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, the EPA had temporarily frozen its lawsuits, certain communications, and some final and pending regulations. Several freezes impact per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulations. For example, the EPA instituted a 60-day delay for certain imminent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PFAS reporting requirements “for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” The EPA noted that it may further delay the effective date beyond 60 days. The EPA also put a stop to Clean Water Act rulemaking to develop effluent limitations for PFAS for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category. Whether this trend will carry through to the many other rules, both adopted and contemplated, related to PFAS remains to be seen.

In the saga of the on-again, off-again Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Climate Disclosure Rule, the SEC recently requested that the Eighth Circuit delay oral arguments in its case defending the rule. As we previously reported, this rule would require companies to report various climate-related information to the SEC. When it became final last year, it was immediately challenged, and the rule’s fate was placed in the hands of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. While it was once moving forward to defend the rule, the SEC is now requesting additional time “to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.” This could be the first step in the ultimate demise of the rule, at least under the current administration.

We will continue to track developments at the federal level. Given the administration’s overall priorities, we expect to see further enforcement and regulation rollbacks on several EHS issues.

  1. Uptick in State Action

Many states are poised to pick up the slack in the face of decreasing federal action. With regard to climate disclosure laws, California has already passed several requiring climate-related disclosures for entities doing business in the state, with reporting requirements approaching next year. Other states are joining in, with New York and Colorado considering their own climate disclosure laws. And as many of us have already experienced, decision-making related to PFAS is dominated by state law. As the federal government steps back from regulation and enforcement, we can expect many states take up the mantle on various issues. The patchwork of state laws could create a compliance challenge for manufacturers operating in multiple locations around the country. It will be important for manufacturers to remain up-to-date on proposed and final state actions so they can be prepared for new requirements that could pop up in various jurisdictions.

  1. Citizen Suit Action

In addition to increased state activity, we expect an increase in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws in 2025. Many federal environmental statutes have provisions allowing for citizen enforcement when the federal government fails to do so. These laws also allow citizens to pursue the government for failed enforcement and oversight. Under the first Trump administration, we saw an uptick in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws, and we expect to see the same during Trump 2.0. These lawsuits could hit manufacturers on various topics, including enforcement related to clean water, clean air, and hazardous waste. Citizens may also target the federal government, which could ultimately cause the federal government to take action of its own, even when it was not planning to do so.

We expect 2025 to be a busy year in the EHS world. We will continue to track these updates and changes here on the blog.

This post is also being shared on our Manufacturing Law blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on legal news and perspectives and related business issues that are facing manufacturers and distributors, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

On January 29, 2025, Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the 17th Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator. After a week on the job, Zeldin continued to maintain several policies that had been put in place immediately after the Trump administration took office. Some of these policies are summarized below. While these actions are generally expected when a new administration begins, there is a sense that additional, significant changes are around the corner.

Freeze on External Actions

On January 24, 2025, the then acting EPA Administrator ordered a temporary halt on all environmental lawsuits to review and possibly change the agency’s stance on these issues. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division, which enforces environmental protection laws, has also been ordered to freeze all activities. This included stopping pending court filings and delaying new complaints, with pending Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act negotiations also on hold for an undetermined time.

This was followed by an internal memorandum instructing EPA staff to halt external communications (e.g., press releases, blog updates, and social media posts), except for discussions with state and federal agencies not related to enforcement, necessary communications regarding imports, and as related to the carrying out of inspections.

The EPA also announced (here and here) delays for several finalized environmental rules from the prior administration. These include rules regarding air pollution, hazardous waste generator improvements, and the regulation of PFAS and trichloroethylene (TCE).

The duration of each of these “freezes” is not clear at this time, but it seems aimed at helping the new administration evaluate what can be changed and likely beginning that change.

Staffing

As federal agencies implement a presidential order to limit telework and remote work, EPA employees must return to the office full-time next month. The EPA stated that regular telework and remote work agreements will be canceled to follow the recent Executive Order on the subject. EPA staff are expected to be in the office daily by February 24, unless they have a disability, medical condition, or other significant reasons certified by their supervisor.

It was also recently reported that the EPA is expected to cut over 1,000 employees who joined the agency within the past year, with a focus on those working on climate change, air pollution, and environmental regulation programs. Additionally, several senior civil service managers in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resource Division have reportedly been reassigned to focus on immigration matters rather than environmental issues.

Within hours of taking office, President Trump issued a flurry of Executive Orders (EO), including several that will undoubtedly affect a wide range of environmental policies nationwide. While the full implications of these EOs, as well as potential additional actions, are far from clear at this early stage, there are several takeaways for those who are in the environmental-regulated community to consider.

While reviewing the summary below of a limited sampling of recent EOs touching on environmental policy, it is important to remember that a significant portion of environmental policy, regulation, and enforcement occurs at the state level and impacts from federal policies and approaches can take many years to be felt, if at all. In fact, in some instances, the policies and strategies at the federal level can produce the opposite approach at the state level. Therefore, it is crucial for any regulated entity to have a strong comprehension of the federal and state landscape as it may apply or interact with its operations, permits, and compliance.

Environmental Justice

With just one EO—Initial Recission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions—nearly 80 EOs from the prior administration were revoked. The list included several EOs related to environmental justice, such as the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative. Environmental justice was also singled out in “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which ordered federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions.

Greenhouse Gases and Energy Resources

An EO entitled “Unleashing American Energy” directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies to review actions “that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy.” The apparent purpose here is to reverse course on greenhouse gas and other federal rules on various energy sources. Furthermore, EPA has been directed, within 30 days, to provide recommendations on the “legality and continuing applicability” of EPA’s 2009 GHG risk finding, which is the underpinning of EPA’s climate rules. Similarly, this EO does away with the “social cost of carbon” metric that was intended to monetize the benefits of policies that curb emissions.

Hiring Freeze and Return to Office

While not EOs, two executive memoranda will surely influence EPA through workforce impacts, resources, and management of priorities. The first, entitled “Return to In-Person Work,” directs all federal agencies, including the EPA, to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in person on a full-time basis. The second, entitled “Hiring Freeze,” freezes federal civilian employee hiring, including EPA staff. The Office of Management and Budget is tasked with delivering a plan within 90 days to further shrink the federal workforce “through efficiency improvements and attrition.” It is very likely that staffing levels at the EPA will be reduced significantly, which could impact the EPA’s capacity to keep up with permitting and enforcement matters.

The Diamond Alkali Superfund site in Newark, New Jersey, which includes the 17-mile Lower Passaic River Study Area, may be one of the country’s most expensive and hotly contested Superfund Sites. The remedy for the dioxin-contaminated river may cost as much as $2 billion when it is completed. The Newark site has been the subject of litigation for years, most involving the Occidental Chemical Company (OxyChem), the successor to Diamond Alkali, which made Agent Orange and other dioxin-containing materials at the site starting in the 1940s. The latest development in this decades-long saga came on December 18, 2024, when Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a consent decree between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 82 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that includes a $150 million cash-out settlement, notwithstanding vehement opposition from OxyChem. 

The Diamond Alkali site has been on the National Priorities List since 1984 after the EPA and New Jersey regulators found high levels of dioxins, pesticides, and other hazardous substances in soil and groundwater at Diamond Alkali’s Newark site and in Passaic River sediments. Over the years, EPA identified OxyChem and over 100 other PRPs, all of whom were allegedly responsible for the discharge of hazardous substances to the Passaic River.  While EPA has identified eight contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site, the Court found that “of those COCs, dioxin is, ‘by an overwhelming margin,’ the most toxic.” This was a significant finding, as very few PRPs could be tied to dioxin discharges.

The EPA initiated a non-binding and voluntary allocation process in 2017 to facilitate settlements and cleanup of the river. While many PRPs agreed to participate in this effort, OxyChem declined. The parties negotiated an allocation methodology, supplied significant material (including briefs and expert reports) for consideration by a neutral, third-party allocator, reviewed Facility Data Reports for themselves and other PRPs, and commented on the Allocation Recommendation Report (the Report). The Report was then considered by EPA as it negotiated the terms of a consent decree with the PRPs. While the Report assigned the overwhelming share of responsibility for the site to OxyChem, during the consent decree negotiations, EPA took several steps which resulted in an increased share of responsibility for the PRPs, thus reducing OxyChem’s potential exposure. These steps included using an alternative allocation methodology, eliminating consideration of culpability and cooperation as allocation factors, and adding a premium of 100% to estimated future costs for cash-out parties. Other revisions were made after the comment period, including removal of certain parties from the consent decree, and adding a reopener if remedy costs exceed a certain amount.

In its 47-page decision, the District Court found that the consent decree was fair, reasonable, and furthered the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act’s (CERCLA) objectives, notwithstanding a massive challenge from OxyChem (The Court noted that OxyChem “spills ample ink” challenging the allocation in its 777 pages of comments and 24,000 pages of exhibits). The Court rejected claims that the settling parties conspired against OxyChem; the neutral had a conflict of interest; the Report was a non-binding allocation report prepared in violation of CERCLA § 122; and the consent decree was substantively unfair.

There seems to be little doubt that OxyChem will appeal, so the saga will continue. But this is an important milestone that, in the Court’s words, will further the cleanup of the Passaic River.