.

Client Alert

The SEC Amends Policy on Economic Projections, and Issues Final Rules and Additional Guidance for SPACs and Shell Companies

February 7, 2024

by Christopher L. Doerksen

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules:

  • updating Item 10(b) of Regulation S-K, which sets forth for domestic and most foreign reporting companies the SEC’s policy on how to make economic projections in SEC filings;
  • adopting final rules relating to the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) and shell company proposals they had issued in March 2022, which significantly change the requirements applicable to SPAC IPOs and de-SPAC transactions by SPACs and similar SEC reporting shell companies; and
  • setting out additional guidance on related topics, including underwriter liability for de-SPAC transactions and when a SPAC may be deemed to be an investment company.

 

Changes to SEC Policy on Projections – Applicable to Most SEC Reporting Companies

Item 10(b) of Regulation S-K represents the SEC’s views on important factors to be considered in formulating and disclosing economic projections in SEC filings. The final rules amend Item 10(b) to:

  • Clarify that the SEC’s policies apply not only to projections made by the reporting company, but also projections made by other companies (such as target companies in a proposed acquisition) that the reporting issuer includes in its SEC filings.
  • State that projected measures that are not based on historical financial results or operational history should be clearly distinguished from projected measures that are based on historical financial results or operational history.
  • State that it would generally be misleading to present projections that are based on historical financial results or operational history without presenting such historical financial results or operational history with equal or greater prominence.

    Practice Note: This treats projections in a similar manner to non-GAAP financial measures. Looking forward, this may mean that if a reporting company wants to disclose a measure such as projected revenue for 2024, the SEC will expect the company to first state what revenue was for 2023, and avoid using any management quotation, superlative, bold text, highlighting, heading or other feature that might imply the 2024 projection is more important than the 2023 results.

  • State that the presentation of projections that include non-GAAP financial measures should include a clear definition or explanation of those financial measures, a description of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) financial measure to which it is most directly comparable, and an explanation why the non-GAAP measure was selected instead of a GAAP measure.

 

Rule Changes for SPACs and Shell Companies

Who Do the Rules Apply to?

The rules create a new defined term for a SPAC. The rules define a SPAC as a company that has either represented that it will pursue a special purpose acquisition strategy, or otherwise has a plan to conduct a primary offering of securities that is not subject to Rule 419 under the Securities Act (such as a IPO that results in listing on Nasdaq or the NYSE), complete a business combination or similar transaction, and return proceeds to its security holders if it fails to do so within a specified time frame.

Shell companies that do not fall within the definition of a SPAC are subject to only some of the new rules.

Consistent with the original proposals, the final rules apply only to companies that register or file reports with the SEC. Other companies, such as private or foreign companies that do not register or file reports with the SEC, are not covered.

How do the Rules Apply?

Practice Note: The amendments seem intended in part to reduce any inadvertent benefits to an operating company of going public through a de-SPAC transaction instead of a traditional IPO, and in part to help ensure that adequate information is provided to the security holders of the operating company in connection with the de-SPAC transaction, and to the security holders of the SPAC in connection with both the IPO and the de-SPAC transaction.

1. Enhancing Investor Protections in SPAC IPOs and De-SPAC Transactions 

The SEC adopted new Subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K which applies to SPAC IPOs and de-SPAC transactions. The final rules enhance SPAC-related disclosures and provide additional protections by:

  • More closely aligning the required disclosures and the legal liabilities that may be incurred in de-SPAC transactions with those in traditional IPOs, including by deeming

    the target company an issuer that must sign a Securities Act registration statement filed by a SPAC (or other shell company) in connection with a de-SPAC transaction;

    Practice Note: While the target already effectively inherited the SPAC’s liability following the de-SPAC transaction, the target’s directors and officers previously had no such responsibility. This change makes the target’s board and signing officers directly responsible and will presumably increase their focus on the quality of the disclosures.  It also means the target company becomes a reporting company in its own right after the registration statement becomes effective, and the target will now need to begin filing SEC reports and otherwise comply with the obligations of a Section 15(d) reporting company prior to closing of the de-SPAC transaction and continue doing so until it is able to suspend reporting under the SEC rules. Staff Legal Bulletin No. 18 generally permits suspension of reporting if the de-SPAC transaction is closed or abandoned.

  • Requiring additional disclosures regarding, among other things, SPAC sponsors, SPAC sponsor compensation, conflicts of interest, dilution, and the target company;
  • Requiring additional disclosures in de-SPAC transactions regarding any determination by a board of directors or similar body as to whether the de-SPAC transaction is advisable and in the best interests of the SPAC and its shareholders, if required by law, and any outside report, opinion, or appraisal received that materially relates to the de-SPAC transaction;
  • Requiring a 20-calendar-day minimum dissemination period for prospectuses and proxy and information statements filed for de-SPAC transactions where consistent with local law; and
  • Requiring a re-determination of smaller reporting company status following the consummation of a de-SPAC transaction and requiring such re-determination to be reflected in filings beginning 45 days after the de-SPAC transaction’s consummation.

2. Enhancing Investor Protections in Shell Company Business Combinations

To help ensure that investors receive Securities Act protections in business combinations involving shell companies (including de-SPAC transactions), the SEC adopted:

  • Rule 145a, which provides that any direct or indirect business combination of a reporting shell company (that is not a business combination related shell company) involving another entity that is not a shell company, is deemed to involve an offer, offer to sell, offer for sale, or sale within the meaning of Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act of securities, to the reporting shell company’s shareholders; and

    Practice Note: This will mean that the de-SPAC transaction is treated as a new offer and sale of securities to the public SPAC security holders as well as to the operating company security holders, and will likely require most de-SPAC transactions to be subject to the disclosure, procedural and liability requirements of a registration statement (with prospectus liability to both sets of shareholders), even where the operating company could otherwise have been acquired on a private placement basis. The SEC also expressed the view that the Section 3(a)(9) exemption would not be available because, among other reasons, the SPAC effectively becomes a different issuer upon completion of the de-SPAC transaction. Because the rule is limited to SEC reporting shell companies, a foreign shell company that does not file reports with the SEC will be treated differently and may still be able to complete its acquisition of an operating company on a private placement basis.

  • New Article 15 of Regulation S-X so financial statement requirements applicable to transactions involving shell companies and private operating companies will be better aligned with those in traditional IPOs.

3. Enhancing Projections Disclosure

To better align the regulatory treatment of projections in business combinations involving certain blank check companies with that in traditional IPOs, the rules adopt a definition of “blank check company” under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) that make the safe harbor for forward-looking statements under the PSLRA unavailable for such blank check companies, including SPACs.

In connection with de-SPAC transactions, the final rules also include disclosure requirements related to projections, including disclosure of all material bases of the projections and all material assumptions underlying the projections.

4. Effective Date and Implementation

The final rules will become effective 125 days after publication in the Federal Register. Compliance with the structured data requirements (which require tagging of information disclosed pursuant to new subpart 1600 of Regulation S-K in Inline XBRL) will be required 490 days after publication of the final rules in the Federal Register.

 

Guidance on Underwriter Status in de-SPAC Transactions

The SEC decided not to adopt the rule that they had proposed in 2022 to codify underwriter liability for de-SPAC transactions.  As proposed, the underwriters for the SPAC IPO could have been deemed underwriters for the de-SPAC transaction. Instead, the final rules include non-rule guidance presenting the SEC’s views about when a person would be an underwriter under Section 2(a)(11) for a de-SPAC transaction. The SEC’s expresses the views that:

  • A de-SPAC transaction involves a distribution of securities;
  • In a de-SPAC distribution, there would be an “underwriter” present where someone is selling for the issuer or participating in the distribution of securities in the combined company to the SPAC’s investors and the broader public; and
  • In that situation, that underwriter would be subject to underwriter liability for the de-SPAC transaction.

 

Investment Company Act Guidance for SPACs

When adopting the final rules, the SEC also decided not to adopt the rule they had proposed in 2022, which would have provided a “safe harbor” that, if followed, would protect a SPAC from being deemed an investment company. Instead, the final rules include SEC guidance on the types of activities that would likely raise serious questions about whether a SPAC is an investment company under the Investment Company Act. While this guidance is directed at SPACs, it is also instructive for blank check companies and other types of shell companies.

Practice Note: The Investment Company Act is a regulatory regime that imposes registration, reporting and corporate governance obligations on publicly held investment vehicles, such as mutual funds. Companies that do not intend to register as investment companies must ensure they are not investment companies, or are eligible for an exemption from registration, to avoid the draconian penalties for violations of the Act, which can include a prohibition on engaging in business in the United States, unenforceability of contracts in the United States, enforced dissolution and criminal penalties for enablers.

To avoid investment company status, SPACs, blank check companies, and similar shell companies should review the SEC’s new guidance[1] and structure their assets and operations accordingly. Assuming that the company has the intention to become an operating company as soon as possible through an acquisition of an operating company whose business would become the company’s primary business, it would be prudent for the company to:

  • Describe itself and its intentions in a manner consistent with this purpose.
  • Ensure that the company’s directors, officers and employees are actively engaged and focused on seeking and completing the transaction that would result in the company being an operating company.
  • Complete its acquisition as quickly as possible. In its new guidance, the SEC stated that “while the duration of a SPAC is not the sole determinant of its status under the Investment Company Act, a SPAC’s activities may become more difficult to distinguish from those of an investment company the longer the SPAC takes to achieve its stated business purpose.” The SEC noted that an exemption under the Act for a transient investment company can be available for up to 12 months, and that escrow accounts of certain blank check companies with a term limited to 18 months were not regulated under the Act, before saying that a “SPAC that operates beyond these timelines raises concerns that the SPAC may be an investment company, and these concerns increase as the departure from these timelines lengthen.” The SEC acknowledged that exchange listing rules contemplate potentially longer SPAC lifespans but said that those rules were adopted for a different regulatory purpose and do not address investment company status concerns.
  • Pending the completion of its acquisition, avoid holding or investing in any assets that would be deemed “investment securities” under the Investment Company Act. This term is quite broad, and includes equity and debt securities, most government bonds, and several common types of term deposits. For this reason, shell companies should pay very close attention to the types of accounts they create with their banks, and the types of investments they hold pending their transformative acquisition. Cash and U.S. federal government securities are not “investment securities”.
  • Pending the completion of the acquisition, minimize the amount of time spend on managing investments, and do not emphasize to investors the quality or return on such investments.
  • Ensure that its acquisition target is not an investment company, and that it will be an operating company and not an investment company upon completion of the acquisition.

The analysis of whether a company is an investment company can be quite complex. The above is only an overview of factors that could be relevant for determining whether a SPAC or similar shell company is an investment company. Companies should seek legal advice to determine their own status.



[1] The SEC’s new guidance regarding Investment Company Act status begins on page 360 of the SEC release for the final rules.

Firm Highlights

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.