Insights on Environmental

Partner J. Michael Showalter was quoted in a recent article examining how the midterm election results and growing calls for oversight could affect data center development.

The Washington Department of Ecology recently released draft regulatory determinations under the state’s Safer Products for Washington (SPW) program.

Partner J. Michael Showalter was quoted in a recent article discussing growing voter opposition to data center development and the potential impact of local bans and moratoriums on future projects.

On October 21, Australia’s Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) released a draft evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) introduction and use in Australia and opened a public consultation that may shape future PFAS reporting and risk management requirements.

Partner J. Michael Showalter was quoted examining provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 that would send certain challenges to federal permitting decisions directly to federal appeals courts.

Can a company be too green for a red state and not green enough for a blue one? Increasingly, that is not just a political question. It is a business and legal one.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed extending certain compliance deadlines under its December 2024 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk management rule for trichloroethylene (TCE).

A new permitting-reform proposal would turn federal delay and discriminatory treatment from administrative frustrations into affirmative claims.

California has enacted new legislation addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in pesticides. On September 27, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1603, which directs the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to identify registered pesticide products containing intentionally added PFAS ingredients and provide greater public visibility into their use.

On September 30, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review Tate Road Solar 1, LLC v. County of Winnebago, an appellate decision that deepened uncertainty about county permitting authority over commercial solar energy projects in Illinois.

A federal court has temporarily blocked New Mexico’s first-of-its-kind requirement that manufacturers label a broad range of products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But the most notable part of the decision is not that the state lost. It is how it lost.

For decades, California’s vehicle-emissions waivers operated under a familiar understanding. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted them, automakers planned around them, and states other than California adopted standards depending on them. Then EPA took the position that certain waivers should have been submitted to US Congress under the Congressional Review Act, potentially exposing long-settled decisions to congressional disapproval.

Judah Prero was quoted examining the implications of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methylene chloride rule and underlying risk assessment.

A recent Fifth Circuit decision vacating the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methylene chloride rule marks one of the most significant judicial interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since the 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments.

Judah Prero was quoted in a recent Chemical Watch News & Insight article examining Connecticut’s approval of a new PFAS product label designed to align with similar requirements in New Mexico. The article explores how increased consistency among state PFAS disclosure laws could affect manufacturers.

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention did not take much of a summer vacation.

“Polluter pays” has intuitive political appeal. But the first federal merits ruling on a state climate-superfund statute shows the harder legal question: not whether climate-adaptation costs are real, but which institution has authority to allocate them.

Judah Prero was quoted discussing the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of its formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The review comes 10 years after the rule’s promulgation and is intended to assess its impact on small businesses while evaluating whether the rule should be continued, amended, or modified.

Oregon’s win in the first federal trial over a packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) law is a practical warning to companies facing the spread of EPR programs: courts may not treat complexity, cost, or multi-state compliance burdens as sufficient grounds to invalidate these laws.

On August 26, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all petitions for review challenging the portion of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 framework rule for new chemical reviews addressing how persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) are evaluated for exemptions from the premanufacture notice (PMN) process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In a recent Federal Register notice, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is conducting a Section 610 review of its Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products rule.

ArentFox Schiff is pleased to announce that 125 attorneys have been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America 2027, with two attorneys highlighted as “Lawyers of the Year” and 36 attorneys listed as “Ones to Watch.”

On August 18, the DC Circuit handed down its decision in Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, unanimously upholding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) — and in doing so, unlocked the law’s powerful enforcement tools against two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds.

The national race to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure is colliding with a stubborn local reality: strategically important projects have to be built somewhere.

Counsel Judah Prero was quoted on recent legal challenges to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval and registration of three new active pesticide ingredients that environmental groups say are harmful due to their designations as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).