.

Blog Post

HIPAA on the Horizon in the New Year: Important Lessons from an Active 2023 and Regulatory Initiatives to Watch for in 2024

January 3, 2024 – Dorsey Health Law

by Alissa Smith and Seamus Taylor

Download as a PDF

Share this page

2023 marked 20 years since the first compliance deadline under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (“HIPAA”) privacy rule. Despite the two decades of experience with HIPAA, compliance continues to remain a challenge for HIPAA-covered entities as well as for their business associates. 2023 brought a large number of important HIPAA-related developments and lessons-learned that privacy/security officials and health care attorneys should be aware of when planning for HIPAA compliance activities in 2024.

This article features lessons learned in some of the most significant HIPAA-related enforcement actions and guidance documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights’ (“OCR”) in 2023, and ends with a summary of some of the ongoing OCR regulatory initiatives to monitor in 2024.

OCR’s First Enforcement Action Related to a Phishing Attack

On December 7, 2023, the OCR announced a $480,000 settlement with Lafourche Medical Group (“LMG”), a Louisiana-based medical group specializing in emergency medicine, occupational medicine, and laboratory testing. The settlement marks the first time that OCR resolved a phishing attack under HIPAA. According to OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer, phishing is “the most common way that hackers gain access to health care systems to steal sensitive data and health information.”

In March 2021, a staff member of LMG was the victim of a phishing attack that compromised the staff member’s email account containing the electronic protected health information (“PHI” or “ePHI”) of as many as 34,000 patients. LMG reported the incident to OCR in May 2021, and OCR began its investigation in January 2022. After OCR investigated the breach, it determined that LMG had failed to comply with the following basic HIPAA requirements: (i) conducting a risk analysis to determine vulnerabilities to PHI, and (ii) creating and maintaining policies and procedures to regularly review information system activity and to safeguard PHI against cyberattacks. As a result of these findings, LMG entered into a resolution agreement with OCR on November 3, 2023, which requires LMG to pay a $480,000 penalty to OCR and implement a two-year corrective action plan (“CAP”) to address the HIPAA violations identified in OCR’s investigation. As part of the CAP, LMG has agreed to undertake HIPAA compliance activities that are required of health care providers:

  • Establish and implement security measures to reduce security risks and vulnerabilities;
  • Develop, maintain, and revise written policies and procedures as necessary to comply with HIPAA; and
  • Provide training to all staff members who have access to patient PHI on HIPAA policies and procedures.

OCR’s report of this first-of-a-kind settlement noted that in 2023 (through November), based on data breaches reported to it, over 89 million individuals had been affected by large data breaches (those involving 500 or more individuals). This was up from 2022, in which over 55 million individuals were affected by these large data breaches. To drive home the significance of OCR’s enforcement action, OCR noted in its press release about the settlement, “Phishing attacks can result in identity theft, financial loss, discrimination, stigma, mental anguish, negative consequences to the reputation, health, or physical safety of the individual or to others identified in the individual’s protected health information.”

Lesson learned: Covered entities should regularly update and review the risk analysis and ensure the organization has adopted business grade security measures to protect ePHI.  Covered entities should also routinely review and update written HIPAA privacy and security policies and procedures, and, most importantly, deliver frequent staff training to ensure staff remain vigilant and skeptical of any suspicious emails or other contact, and report the emails or other contact immediately to the privacy and security officers. Staff training is a critical line of defense against phishing attacks.

Embedded Tracking Technologies- HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates Should Carefully Review Their Websites

In December 2022, OCR issued a bulletin that warned HIPAA covered entities and business associates against the use of embedded tracking technologies that could track individually-identifiable health information on the covered entities’ or business associates’ websites. OCR defined “tracking technology” as “a script or code on a website or mobile app used to gather information about users as they interact with the website or mobile app.” While some covered entities track online user activity internally, many covered entities contract with third-party analytics companies to track and analyze the data about the individual users’ access to and interaction with the covered entity’s website.  Common third-parties used to track website use data include: Meta Pixel, Google Analytics and Adobe Analytics. Tracking technologies allow the covered entity to gain insights about users’ online activities for marketing purposes, and to help improve patient experience on the website and to improve patient care, among other reasons. However, the third-parties who track the data are also able to use the data to target ads and to otherwise profile the users.

The guidance points out that individually identifiable health information (such as a person’s appointment date, home or email address, or IP address) is “protected health information” that is governed by HIPAA, even if the individual does not have a pre-existing relationship with the covered entity and even if the information does not include sensitive information like treatment information, diagnosis or billing data. As OCR noted in its guidance, the risk that the data being tracked is HIPAA-protected PHI is highest on those portions of a covered entity’s website that have user-authenticated pages (where the individual logs in) because the information on those pages are more likely to include sensitive health information like diagnosis, prescription and other treatment information. OCR’s bulletin warned that the use of individually identifiable health information that is tracked on a covered entity’s website must be in compliance with HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. This means, for example, that any third-party data tracker/analyst who the covered entity engages must have a written business associate agreement in place with the covered entity.

Prior to, and after OCR’s bulletin, twenty or more class action lawsuits were filed against hospitals and health systems across the U.S. based on allegations that the hospitals were inappropriately sharing patient data with companies like Google, Facebook, Adobe and others for marketing purposes. Some of the cases have settled and others are ongoing.

In response to the OCR bulletin, hospitals and health systems expressed alarm due to the proliferation of the use of website data trackers in use at nearly every hospital in the nation. Some have joined a legal challenge against the OCR bulletin. In November 2023, the American Hospital Association, the Texas Hospital Association and others filed suit against OCR claiming that the OCR bulletin improperly imposes HIPAA restrictions on information that is not “protected health information” as that term is defined under HIPAA.

In February 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) began enforcing a lesser-known law called the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule (the “HBN Rule”) against companies that use website-embedded tracking technologies and disclose the data being tracked through these technologies to third-party tracking companies. The HBN Rule applies to non-HIPAA covered entities that are vendors of personal health records (or who are a related entity or service provider of a vendor of personal health records).  The HBN Rule requires that a breach notification be filed with the FTC if there is an unauthorized disclosure of personal health information, such as to a third party that has embedded tracking technologies on the company’s website. Under this law, the FTC took enforcement action against well-known companies such as BetterHelp, GoodRx and Premom, requiring the payment of large civil money penalties and requiring that the companies adopt and enforce internal prohibitions on sharing user health data with third parties for advertising purposes.  Additionally, the FTC issued industry guidance as a warning to others who use embedded tracking technologies on their websites.

In July 2023, the OCR and FTC teamed up and issued a joint letter to 130 hospitals and telehealth providers about the risks and concerns regarding the use of the website tracking technologies, and issued a press release with a general warning to the hospital system and telehealth industry against the use of embedded tracking technologies.

Lesson learned: HIPAA covered entities should carefully review their websites to ensure that any third party with embedded tracking technologies has signed a HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement, and to ensure that the use or disclosure of any data gleaned from tracking access to the company website is compliant with the HIPAA privacy rule. See our prior articles on this topic here and here.

Rights of Access Initiative- Still a Top Priority for OCR

In 2023, the OCR reached several new resolution agreements with entities alleged to have violated patients’ rights to timely access of their medical records. Under HIPAA, covered entities, like health care providers and payors, have a maximum of 30 days (which OCR describes as an “outer limit”) to provide patients with a copy of their medical record upon request. The “Right of Access Initiative” became an enforcement priority for OCR at the end of 2019, in an attempt to address patient complaints about difficulties they encountered in obtaining timely copies of their medical records. In fact, OCR’s final resolution agreement of 2023 in the amount of $80,000 marked OCR’s 46th such settlement in a little over three years. In response to what OCR views as a widespread issue of non-compliance, OCR has published guidance for covered entities’ implementation of this individual HIPPA right to access.

Lesson learned: Review and audit the administrative processes your organization has in place for responding to requests for patient records to ensure they meet HIPAA’s requirements.

Major Source of Risk: Covered Entity and Business Associate Failure to Conduct Enterprise-Wide Security Risk Analysis

In May and June 2023, OCR entered into resolution agreements with two separate business associates who, in similar fact patterns, were found to have lacked a sufficient enterprise-wide risk analysis of their security function, leading to the breach of hundreds of thousands of patient records.  In one situation, the business associate provided billing, coding and IT services to health care providers and, through a compromise in the business associate’s systems, the PHI of hundreds of individuals was exfiltrated from an unsecured server by an unauthorized person.  In the other situation, a business associate that provides practice management, practice analytics and revenue cycle management services to health care providers inadvertently allowed a file transfer protocol (“FTP”) server containing hundreds of thousands of individuals’ data to be openly accessible on the internet.

OCR also cited a covered entity for non-compliance with the risk analysis standard. In February 2023, OCR entered into a resolution agreement with a large health system in order to resolve a data breach impacting 2.81M individuals following a hacking incident.  When OCR investigated the incident, it found that the health system lacked a risk analysis to determine the risks and vulnerabilities to its patients’ ePHI.  OCR also found a number of important security rule violations that stemmed from the initial failure to conduct risk analyses, including failing to implement an authentication process, failing to monitor the activity of users on the system, and failure to have security measures in place for ePHI that was being transmitted electronically.

In September 2023, OCR and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) published an updated version of a do-it-yourself security risk assessment tool, intended for small and medium-sized covered entities. The updated tool is intended to make it easier for covered entities and business associates to assess the security risk to ePHI and to mitigate that risk.

Lesson learned: In resolution agreements, OCR routinely cites companies for failing to complete an enterprise-side security rule risk analysis. In fact, this is one of the most common sources of HIPAA violations that lead to subsequent settlement agreements with OCR. The bottom line is that there is no substitute for an enterprise-wide security rule risk analysis.  This type of risk analysis should be conducted routinely by covered entities and by their business associates in order to identify and mitigate the security risks to all repositories of electronic PHI. Another lesson that comes out of this pair or resolution agreements in 2023 is that covered entities should carefully vet and audit the HIPAA compliance program and practices of their potential and current business associates. In the end, although business associates have their own liability under HIPAA, the patient data and patient relationships at risk are those of the covered entity served by the business associate.

Even Small Breaches Can Result in Liability

In 2023, OCR settled two cases that contained fact patterns OCR has addressed in guidance and settlement agreements repeatedly: snooping and social media breaches. Notably, these cases each also involved a small number of patients, and the enforcement actions signal to covered entities and business associates that even small breaches can result in liability. One resolution agreement was with a hospital related to its security staff snooping in patient records. The other resolution agreement was with a physician practice that responded to a negative review on Google in a way that acknowledged the patient relationship and disclosed patient information.

Lessons learned: Ongoing staff training regarding impermissible uses and disclosures of patient information is a critical element of a provider’s HIPAA compliance activities. Include basic reminders in HIPAA workforce training through, for example, use of the resolution agreements in the way that OCR intends them to used- as an example for others to help prevent similar conduct in the future.

COVID-19 HIPAA Enforcement Discretion Ends and OCR Emphasized its Enforcement Priority and Strategy for Cybersecurity

In August 2023, years of HIPAA-related enforcement discretion by OCR related to the COVID-19 pandemic came to an end.  The enforcement discretion that OCR exercised throughout the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic related to matters such as the use of non-HIPAA compliant telehealth technologies, and non-HIPAA compliance related to COVID-19 vaccine patient scheduling, public health and health oversight disclosures, and community based testing sites. OCR published notifications and guidance to the public to prepare HIPAA covered entities and business associates for an end to the waiver of enforcement discretion.

OCR also announced the development of a new enforcement division at OCR, called the Health Information Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity Division, which will focus on OCR’s work and role in cybersecurity. Additionally, citing a 93% increase in large data breaches due to cybersecurity events between 2018-2022 (with a 278% increase in large breaches involving ransomware), the Department of Health and Human Services published a concept paper outlining the Department’s cybersecurity strategy for health care providers. The strategy calls for new voluntary health care-specific cybersecurity goals; developing incentives and supports with Congress that will be used to help hospitals improve cybersecurity; and strategies for increasing accountability and coordination within the health care sector.

Ongoing OCR Regulatory Initiatives- Changes are Coming

OCR has introduced several HIPAA regulatory initiatives that are still under consideration by the agency, and many of which may become finalized in 2024.  It is important for privacy/security officials and health care counsel to be familiar with the proposed regulations in order to understand OCR’s perspective because that helps in steering internal compliance protocols, training and accountability at the organization:

  1. Reproductive Health Care

OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on April 12, 2023 to prohibit the use or disclosure of PHI to identify, investigate, prosecute, or sue patients, providers, and others involved in the provision of legal reproductive health care, including abortion. The public comment period closed on June 16, 2023 and OCR received over 25,000 comments. A final rule has not yet been published.

  1. Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) Treatment Records

In coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), OCR issued a NPRM on November 28, 2022 to align certain aspects of 42 CFR part 2 (Part 2) with HIPAA. Part 2 protects patient records maintained in connection with substance abuse education prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation or research in order to ensure privacy for SUD patients. The public comment period closed on January 31, 2023 and OCR received over 200 comments. A final rule has not yet been published.

  1. HITECH Request for Information (“RFI”) Regarding Mitigating Security Practices and the Sharing of Monetary Settlements with Individuals Harmed

OCR published a RFI on April 6, 2022, seeking public input on portions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act). The RFI specifically requests input on: (i) recognized security practices that OCR will consider when determining potential fines, audit results, or other remedies for resolving potential violations of HIPAA; and (ii) the methodology under which an individual harmed by a potential HIPAA violation may receive a percentage of a monetary penalty/settlement collected with respect to such violation. The public comment period closed on June 6, 2022. OCR has yet to announce further action on this RFI.

  1. HIPAA Privacy Rule Updates

OCR issued a NPRM on January 1, 2021 to modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule to encourage patient engagement in health care, remove barriers to coordinated care, and decrease regulatory burden. The public comment period closed on May 6, 2021 and OCR received over 1,300 comments. A final rule has not yet been published.

The proposed new rules, if finalized, would require some significant changes at HIPAA covered entities and business associates, such as: allowing patients to inspect their PHI in person and take notes or photographs of their PHI; changing the maximum time to provide access to PHI from 30 days to 15 days; new rules about costs for records including certain circumstances when ePHI must be provided at no cost, requirements to provide estimates of fees for copies, and requirements to post fee schedules for records access on the website; individuals will be permitted to request that their PHI be transferred to a personal health application or direct ePHI to be send to another covered entity; covered entities will be required to inform individuals that they have the right to obtain or direct copies of their PHI to a third-party when a summary of PHI is offered instead of a copy; the requirement for HIPAA-covered entities to obtain written confirmation that a Notice of Privacy Practices has been provided will be removed; covered entities will be allowed to disclose PHI to avert a threat to health or safety when harm is “seriously and reasonably foreseeable” (as opposed to the current, more stringent standard that only allows such disclosure when harm is “serious and imminent," and expansion of permissible uses and disclosures by covered entities based on care coordination, case management and based on a good faith belief that the disclosure it is in the best interest of the individual.

While the pending HIPAA updates are intended to ease the administration burden on HIPAA-covered entities in the long run, there will be a significant short term burden associated with changes to policies and procedures, changes related to notices of privacy practices, changes to medical record access processes and others.

The authors will continue to monitor these initiatives for updates and changes in 2024. If you have any questions about HIPAA, cyber-attacks, OCR investigations, or regulatory changes, reach out to your regular Dorsey attorney or to any member of the Dorsey & Whitney LLP Healthcare Transactions and Regulations practice group.

Firm Highlights

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

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

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.