.

Client Alert

CFIUS and Its Proposed Regulations Expanding Jurisdiction - Foreign Investment in the United States will Face More National Security Reviews

October 30, 2019

by Lawrence Ward, Dave Townsend, and T. Augustine Lo

Download as a PDF

Share this page

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Investment Security published proposed regulations on September 24 (“Proposed Regulations”). Under the Proposed Regulations, more foreign investment transactions will be subject to scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). The expanded scope of transactions that will become subject to CFIUS jurisdiction would include certain foreign non-controlling stakes in U.S. businesses whose operations involve critical infrastructure, export-controlled technologies, or sensitive personal data, as well as real estate transactions that involve properties in close proximity to certain military installations or that are part of certain airports or seaports. In addition, the Proposed Regulations impose mandatory reporting to CFIUS of certain transactions by foreign governments and their subsidiaries in U.S. businesses.

The scope of potentially affected transactions under the Proposed Regulations includes those in aerospace, architecture and construction, aviation, civil engineering, defense, electric power generation and transmission, electronics, energy, healthcare, insurance, public utilities, real estate, telecommunications, and many others. Accordingly, U.S. businesses and foreign investors considering new investment transactions in the United States should consider seriously the Proposed Regulations alongside the current CFIUS regulations in 31 CFR Part 800 and 31 CFR Part 801. Such parties should carefully weigh whether a declaration filing with CFIUS is mandated or would be prudent to shield the parties from later adverse action by CFIUS. The Proposed Regulations (in one form or another) will become effective in early 2020.

Expanded CFIUS Jurisdiction for Non-Controlling Foreign Investment

The Proposed Regulations would expand CFIUS jurisdiction to cover certain investments in “TID U.S. Businesses.” A “TID U.S. Business” means any U.S. business involved in critical technologies (the “T”), critical infrastructure (the “I”), or sensitive personal data (the “D”) that satisfy the following criteria:

  • Critical Technologies. The term “critical technologies” in the Proposed Regulations means any goods, software, or technology controlled under U.S. export controls and subject to particular licensing requirements under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or any other U.S. export control regimes administered for non-proliferation reasons (e.g., nuclear or missile technologies, select agents and toxins, chemical weapons).  CFIUS has already imposed a mandatory reporting requirement for non-controlling foreign investment in U.S. businesses with certain critical technologies through its Pilot Program that went into effect on November 10, 2018 (see our earlier update on the Pilot Program here). CFIUS continues to review the Pilot Program and may revise the mandatory reporting requirements imposed by the Pilot Program in conjunction with finalization of the Proposed Regulations. The list of “critical technologies” will expand with new regulations on “foundational and emerging technologies,” which are expected before the end of the year.
  • Critical Infrastructure. The term “critical infrastructure” in the Proposed Regulations is defined broadly as certain activities in industries listed in an annex (“Annex”) to the Proposed Regulations, covering many energy, government contracts, telecommunications, transportation, and other products and services. The Annex identifies the type of critical infrastructure as well as the specified U.S. activities relating to that infrastructure. To be considered a U.S. business involved with critical infrastructure under the Proposed Regulations, the U.S. business must be both involved with the type of critical infrastructure and the type of activities for that infrastructure specified in the Annex.
  • Sensitive Personal Data. Under the Proposed Regulations, the term “sensitive personal data” means data that can distinguish or trace an individual’s identity and is collected or maintained by a U.S. business about: (i) any number of sensitive U.S. persons (e.g., U.S. military personnel or federal employees), (ii) one million or more individuals, or (iii) less than one million individuals where the business intends to collect or maintain data on one million or more individuals in the future. This definition would include many U.S. companies that serve large numbers of individual customers or that otherwise maintain data relating to large numbers of individuals. Some key sectors where such databases of sensitive data may be necessary for an effective U.S. business would include financial services, retail (either online or offline), and healthcare.

The definitions of a “TID U.S. Business” would sweep in many more companies, industries, and sectors than were previously subject to CFIUS jurisdiction. In particular, in the past, many U.S. companies involved with the design, construction, or support of critical infrastructure (e.g., in highway or bridge construction) or in the handling of large amounts of sensitive personal data probably never considered themselves of interest to CFIUS, but the Proposed Regulations now make clear that CFIUS is interested in reviewing certain transactions involving foreign investment in such companies. Accordingly, the Proposed Regulations would expand the volume of foreign investment activity that would be subject to CFIUS scrutiny.

Not all foreign investments in TID U.S. Businesses would be considered “covered investments” under the Proposed Regulations. A “covered investment” is broadly defined in the Proposed Regulations as a non-controlling foreign investment that gives one of the following to the foreign investor related to a “TID U.S. Business”: (i) access to material nonpublic technical information about the U.S. business’s “critical infrastructure” or “critical technology”; (ii) a seat on the U.S. business’s board of directors or observer rights, or the ability to nominate someone for such positions; or (iii) decision-making authority concerning any “critical technology,” “critical infrastructure,” or “sensitive personal data.”

If a foreign investor makes a “covered transaction” (meaning either a transaction that leads to a change in control, or a non-controlling “covered investment”) in a “TID U.S. Business,” the parties will need to consider whether to file a voluntary notice with CFIUS. If the parties decline to voluntarily notify CFIUS about such a transaction, they must accept the risk that CFIUS could, either before or after closing of the transaction, require that the parties take measures to mitigate any perceived national security impacts of the transaction, up to and including the required divestiture of any interest acquired by the foreign investor in the U.S. business. On the other hand, if the parties decide to submit a voluntary notice to CFIUS, the parties may submit an abbreviated declaration that would lead to a 30-day review period after which CFIUS could respond by telling the parties there is no national security issue in the proposed transaction or, alternatively, that there is such an issue and the parties must file a full-length notice to CFIUS. However, as an alternative to such a declaration, the Proposed Regulations allow the parties to immediately submit a voluntary notice to CFIUS and thus skip the declaration step completely.  CFIUS review and investigation of a full notice could last 45 days to 105 days.

The Proposed Regulations additionally impose mandatory reporting requirements for investments in the United States made by foreign government investors or investors whose ultimate owners are a foreign government. In particular, mandatory reporting is triggered for a “covered transaction” in a “TID U.S. Business” that transfers 25% or more interests to foreign investors that are themselves 49% or more owned by a foreign government. Under the Proposed Regulations, a foreign government is deemed to have a 100% interest in any entity in which it acts as a parent by virtue of majority ownership of voting rights or in which the foreign government has rights to the majority of the profits of the entity. Accordingly, if a foreign government holds the majority of the ownership, either directly or indirectly, of a foreign investor, that investor would be considered to be acting on behalf of the foreign government under the Proposed Regulations.

The Proposed Regulations also include two potentially significant exceptions to what CFIUS would consider to be a “covered investment.” First, CFIUS may establish a mechanism by which it can designate a foreign country as “excepted,” meaning that such a listed country and its investors generally will not be considered to make non-controlling “covered investments.” The Proposed Regulations do not specify the criteria that CFIUS would use to designate such an excepted foreign country. However, even an excepted country’s foreign investment in a U.S. business would remain subject to CFIUS jurisdiction if such an investment results in foreign control of a U.S. business. Second, under the Proposed Regulations, a covered investment would not include those transactions made by certain investment funds in which a foreign person holds only a passive interest and such foreign person is not controlling the investment fund’s decisions.

Expanded CFIUS Jurisdiction for Real Estate Transactions

In addition, FIRRMA required CFIUS to promulgate new regulations to deal with certain real estate transactions. The Proposed Regulations thus include a new 31 C.F.R. Part 802 to govern CFIUS reviews of real estate transactions that involve either: (i) real property relating to key U.S. airports and seaports, or (ii) real property that is in close proximity to a U.S. military installation or other U.S. Government site that is sensitive for national security reasons. The Proposed Regulations give detailed criteria that define the scope of such covered real estate transactions. CFIUS provides a finite list of U.S. airports, seaports, and military installations, including the relevant distance from those locations that are covered under the Proposed Regulations. For the most part, in urban areas, the new proposed rules generally cover only sites that are within a radius of one mile of listed U.S. military installations. Outside of urban areas, with respect to certain specified U.S. military installations that are viewed as particularly sensitive, this “proximity” concern extends to 100 miles on land (approximately 160 km), 12 nautical miles (approximately 22.22 km) offshore, and even entire counties.

The Proposed Regulations also create certain blanket exemptions for some forms of real estate.  Under the Proposed Regulations, within urban areas, transactions that do not involve property located on a listed U.S. seaport or airport or that are not within one mile of a listed U.S. military installation are exempt. The Proposed Regulations also exempt single housing units, lease or concession of commercial retail space in an airport or seaport, commercial office space where foreign owners and tenants do not exceed 10% of the total office space in the building, and land that is either owned by a Native American village, group, or corporation, or held in trust by the U.S. Government for the benefit of a Native American tribe or other entity. The Proposed Regulations also would exempt certain transactions by securities underwriters and insurers. The Proposed Regulations further contemplate the future exemption of foreign real estate investors from certain countries if those investors have not committed any serious U.S. law violations, including any U.S. export control or economic sanctions violations.

Of great relevance for non-U.S. mortgage lenders and other creditors, the Proposed Regulations cover lending transactions that would grant any contingent property rights to the foreign creditor. The Proposed Regulations would treat a credit default or imminent credit default as a triggering event that can create CFIUS jurisdiction. The new rules also indicate that a property transfer in the context of bankruptcy proceedings could create a covered transaction. Thus, if a foreign creditor intends to rely substantially upon such contingent property rights as security for its credit, it would be well for such a foreign creditor to review its CFIUS exposure before extending the credit facility.

As with the Proposed Regulations summarized above, the new real estate transaction rules would allow parties in any covered real estate transaction to voluntarily submit either a declaration to CFIUS with a review period of 30 days or a standard voluntary notice to CFIUS with a review and possibly investigation of between 45 and 105 days.

Filing Fees

FIRRMA also granted CFIUS authority to impose filing fees upon the filing of declarations or notices about proposed transactions that are subject to its regulations. However, to date, CFIUS has not proposed any such filing fees. That said, CFIUS expressly noted in its Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) released at the same time as the Proposed Regulations that it would “publish separate proposed regulations regarding fees at a later date.”

Dorsey & Whitney attorneys have had decades of experience helping clients navigate CFIUS issues in the context of proposed investment, acquisition, or other transactions and in reporting and clearing such proposed transactions with CFIUS under Section 721.

 

Firm Highlights

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

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?

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World’s Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm’s Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings. The following Dorsey attorneys were recognized in the inaugural guide: Lindsey Sadler Gregory Tamkin Charlene Krogh Evan Everist Jeffrey Cadwell Fara Sunderji Bruce Ewing Catherine Parrish Lake J. Michael Keyes The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world’s leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide. Dorsey’s intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content. The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.

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.

News

Dorsey’s London Corporate Practice and Partners Earn Chambers UK 2027 Rankings

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

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.