Navigating Amara’s Law: A Guide to Minnesota’s New PFAS Reporting Obligations

By Lianne Mantione and Abigail Dop on Posted in Chemicals & Products

Manufacturers and distributors around the country are gearing up to comply with Minnesota’s Amara’s Law, which targets the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products. The first stage of Amara’s Law took effect in 2025 when eleven categories of new products sold in Minnesota, such as carpets, cookware, dental floss, and menstrual products, were required to be made without PFAS. The goal of the law is to ultimately phase out all non-essential uses of PFAS due to their persistence in the environment and concerns with potential associated environmental and health risks.

As part of its initiative to drive transparency around PFAS use, Amara’s Law introduced several reporting requirements, which were outlined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in December 2025. Compared to the federal PFAS reporting program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Minnesota’s program is generally viewed as a stricter and more compliance-heavy program.

Continue Reading

Environmental Permitting for AI Data Centers: Federal Acceleration, Federal Lands, and State Resistance

By Alex Arensberg, Carolyn L. McIntosh and Phil Sandick on Posted in Air Quality, Artificial Intelligence, Climate Change & Sustainability, Energy & Utilities, Mining & Natural Resources, NEPA, Rulemaking & Policy Development, Water Quality
Online News

The environmental permitting landscape for data centers is shifting rapidly, with federal and state regulators often pulling in opposite directions. The Trump Administration has moved to accelerate federal environmental review and to open federal lands for data center siting. States and localities have responded by tightening scrutiny of the energy, water, and land use impacts of these facilities. This post summarizes the relevant permitting framework, the key federal and state developments, and what comes next.

Environmental Permitting Overview:

Large-scale data center projects typically require overlapping federal, state, and local environmental authorizations, with the precise mix turning on site location, project design, and affected resources.

Federal requirements may include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects involving federal action; Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for projects affecting listed species or critical habitat; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) coverage for cooling water, stormwater, and process wastewater discharges; Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permits (with Section 401 certification) for discharges of dredged or fill material; Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Nonattainment New Source Review preconstruction permits and Title V operating permits for major air sources; and Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act review where applicable.

State requirements commonly include air, water withdrawal, industrial wastewater, stormwater, and hazardous waste permits, along with review under “little NEPA” statutes such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  Local approvals typically include zoning, conditional use, building, noise, traffic, and grading permits.

Continue Reading

The Packaging EPR Lawsuit You’re Not Watching—But Should Be

By Allen Kacenjar, Phil Sandick, Jennifer Tharp and Nicole Bothwell on Posted in Climate Change & Sustainability, Environmental
Are You Ready?

If you follow extended producer responsibility (EPR) litigation, your inbox has been full of updates about Oregon.  For good reason: the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed suit in federal court in July 2025 challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, secured a preliminary injunction in February 2026, and has a trial date set for July.  That’s high drama with potential real ramifications (although the court did rule that the injunction only covered entities who were members of NAW when the injunction issued and the court has denied at least one motion by other groups to intervene in the lawsuit as plaintiffs).  The recent release of lists of compliant and non-compliant entities was also quite unexpected.

While everyone is focused on the Pacific Northwest, a second packaging EPR lawsuit quietly landed in Colorado, one of the other states with more advanced EPR programs.  It deserves serious attention from manufacturers and distributors operating anywhere in the country.

Continue Reading

Understanding New Mexico’s New PFAS Product Labeling Requirement

By Danelle Gagliardi and Abigail Dop on Posted in Chemicals & Products
science laboratory glassware

Regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products continues to accelerate across the United States at the state level. In addition to phase-outs and bans on certain consumer products containing PFAS, state regulators are turning to labeling requirements as a tool to drive transparency and liability.

One notable recent development comes from New Mexico. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) formally proposed a rule to require consumer-facing labels on products containing intentionally added PFAS. On March 23, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) officially approved the rule, making New Mexico the first state to require such labels on all products containing PFAS, even if those products are currently exempt from reporting/disclosure obligations to the state. The labeling requirements will go into effect January 1, 2027.

Although the precise label is not yet finalized, the required label is expected to consist of an Erlenmeyer flask image containing the word “PFAS.” For products other than complex durable goods, this label will be required to appear on the product and in some cases the packaging as well. For complex durable goods (defined to include products with a useful life of at least five years and composed of at least 100 components) the label need not appear on the product but must be included in a consumer-facing product specification sheet and operation and maintenance manual.

Continue Reading

UK Parliamentary Committee Publishes Report on PFAS Risks

By Francesca Puttock on Posted in Chemicals & Products, Climate Change & Sustainability, Environmental, Environmental Due Diligence, Food Safety, Food-Contact Materials and Articles, Health & Safety, Supply Chain, Water Quality

It has been a couple of months since the UK PFAS Plan was published and made countless headlines. Today (23 April 2026), having gathered evidence as part of a parliamentary inquiry, the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee (“EAC“) published a report titled ‘Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)‘.

The report summarises the conclusions drawn by the EAC in the course of its inquiry and makes recommendations grouped into three areas:

  1. Preventing PFAS at source
  2. Human exposure and risk management
  3. Addressing pollution.

There is a lot to digest in this report, so we have highlighted some notable examples of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the EAC:

Continue Reading

Emerging State-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Frameworks

By Michael Cox and Phil Sandick on Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change & Sustainability, Rulemaking & Policy Development
Gas turbine electrical power plant

As the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rolls back greenhouse gas (GHG) laws, rules, and regulations consistent with Trump Administration priorities, several states are advancing legislation to create their own GHG emissions reporting frameworks. While some of these initiatives generally mirror California’s climate disclosure requirements, this new state-led regulatory landscape is creating a state-by-state patchwork that businesses must now monitor.

Federal Rollback

Beginning with President Trump’s Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (January 20, 2025), the Trump Administration has made clear that it opposes any laws—federal or state—addressing the causes or impacts of climate change. For example:

Continue Reading

UPDATE: CARB Passes Initial Climate Disclosure Regulation under SB 253 and SB 261

By Alex Arensberg, Lianne Mantione, Michael Cox and Phil Sandick on Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change & Sustainability, Rulemaking & Policy Development
flags

At its February 26, 2026 meeting, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) approved a key step in implementing California’s landmark climate disclosure laws. CARB adopted the long-awaited California Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Climate Related Financial Risk Disclosure Initial Regulation (“Initial Regulation”) implementing the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261). The Initial Regulation establishes the administration and implementation fee structure for SB 253 and SB 261 and sets the first emissions reporting deadline under SB 253: August 10, 2026. Notably, compliance with SB 261 remains voluntary after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined enforcement of that law.

Our previous, in-depth analysis of these two laws can be found here. In general, SB 253 and SB 261 require large companies doing business in California to disclose climate-related information, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and climate-related financial risks. SB 253 applies to companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, while SB 261 applies to companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue. As clarified in the Initial Regulation, these revenue thresholds are tied to entities’ gross receipts as reported to the California Franchise Tax Board.

Continue Reading

USFWS Proposes Changes under the Endangered Species Act

By Tabitha Madziwanzira, Jennifer Tharp and Danelle Gagliardi on Posted in Endangered Species Act
Red Wolf at Rest

The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) has seen a 99% success rate in protecting listed species since its inception in 1973. After celebrating its 52nd anniversary this year, there are diverging views about how to continue to advance this success while developing efficiencies in the decision-making process. Most recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) published four proposed rulemakings in quick succession that generated thousands of comments from the public, zoo and animal foundations, and other interested parties. The four proposed rules specifically relate to listing and delisting decisions, interagency cooperation and consultation, allowance of economic factors in decision-making, threatened species protection, and critical habitat exclusions. The comment deadline for all four proposed rules was December 22, 2025, despite requests from multiple organizations for an extension of the comment period to March 2026. Over 300,000 comments were received on each proposed rule prior to the deadline.

Continue Reading

Defra releases anticipated ‘PFAS Plan’

By Francesca Puttock on Posted in Chemicals & Products, Environmental, Food Safety, Food-Contact Materials and Articles, Health & Safety, Supply Chain

Today we published an update on Defra’s PFAS Plan: “UK Government Releases PFAS Plan Teased in December 2025“. This plan features among the commitments made in the Environmental Improvement Plan made public at the end of last year.

It is generally recognised that the UK needs a plan for PFAS management, but in the hours following the publication of the plan, some commentators expressed that some of the measures identified in the plan lacked clarity (in particular in relation to specific timeframes).

Tackling PFAS is a key policy area in the EU and UK. At the end of January, the European Commission published a report (“The cost of PFAS pollution for our society“) estimating that “if the current levels of PFAS pollution in Europe continue until 2050 without regulatory action, the cost will reach approximately €440 billion during that period. Tackling such PFAS releases at the source by 2040 would save €110 billion, whereas treating polluted water alone would cost more than €1 trillion.”

But PFAS are a wide group of substances, integrated into countless product supply chains, and across most industries, in many cases with no clear alternatives. Another notable piece of research focusing on six fluoropolymers and F Gas and examining the potential impact of a full or partial EU REACH restriction recently called for a “balanced approach that protects the environment while preserving industrial and technological capability” (“The [PFAS] and their role as enablers in the competitiveness of European industry“). This document will be of particular interest to businesses in the aerospace, defence, green energy, and semiconductor sectors.

LexBlog