.

Client Alert

PPP Loan Forgiveness Application: A Discussion of Recent Developments and Implications for Lenders

May 28, 2020

by Kenneth Logsdon, Steven T. Waterman, and Joseph Lynyak

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Due to economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19, Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) under sections 1102 and 1106 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).  The PPP is administered by the Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) and provides that loans guaranteed by the SBA may be fully forgiven if borrowers use the proceeds to maintain their payrolls and pay certain specified eligible non-payroll expenses.

A significant amount of guidance has been provided by the SBA in respect of the PPP generally and on May 15, 2020, the SBA released the long-awaited Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Application, accompanied by detailed instructions (collectively, the “Application”).    Though the Application provides guidance to PPP loan borrowers on the details of loan forgiveness, the SBA indicates that it will continue to issue additional regulations and guidance to further assist borrowers as they complete their Applications, and provide lenders with guidance on their responsibilities in connection with the same. 

The following highlight some of the common questions and complexities regarding the forgiveness process that are answered by the Application and recent rules, together with a discussion of the implications and practical considerations for PPP lenders.

Time Period for Forgiveness 

PPP loan borrowers may be eligible to have loans forgiven if the proceeds are used for eligible expenses over the eight-week period commencing when the loan was first disbursed (the “Covered Period”).  For administrative convenience, the Application also provides an option for borrowers to calculate payroll costs using an “Alternative Payroll Covered Period” that aligns with a borrower’s regular payroll cycles in lieu of using the Covered Period.  The Alternative Payroll Covered Period is the eight-week period starting on the first day of the pay period immediately following loan disbursement.

When are Payroll and Non-Payroll Costs “Paid and Incurred”?

Under the CARES Act, PPP loan borrowers are generally eligible for forgiveness of payroll costs “paid and incurred during” the Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period).  The Application addresses the ambiguity under the CARES Act regarding the timing of payroll  payments and incurrences.  Specifically, payroll costs are considered paid on the day that paychecks are distributed or funds are deposited into an employee’s account.  Payroll costs are considered “incurred” on the day that an employee’s pay is earned.  Payroll costs incurred but not paid during a borrower’s last pay period of the Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period) are eligible for forgiveness if paid on or before the next regular payroll date.  Eligible non-payroll costs must be paid during the Covered Period or incurred during the Covered Period and paid on or before the next regular billing date, even if the billing date is after the Covered Period.  Note that eligible non-payroll costs must be tied to the Covered Period and not the Alternative Payroll Covered Period.  Finally, both payroll and non-payroll costs that are both paid and incurred can be counted only once.

Costs Eligible for Forgiveness 

Eligible payroll costs are the key factor to maximizing PPP loan forgiveness. No less than 75% of all eligible costs for forgiveness spent during the Covered Period/Alternative Payroll Covered Period must be eligible payroll costs.  For purposes of calculating forgiveness, compensation under “payroll costs” includes “gross salary, gross wages, gross tips, gross commissions, paid leave (vacation, family, medical or sick leave not including leave covered by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act), and allowances for dismissal or separation paid or incurred during the Covered Period (or the Alternative Payroll Covered Period).”

The SBA has determined that the CARES Act’s definition of the term “payroll costs” should be interpreted broadly to include compensation in the form of salary, wages, commission payments to furloughed employees, bonuses, hazard pay or similar compensation. If a borrower pays furloughed employees their salary, wages, or commissions during the Covered Period/Alternative Payroll Covered Period (even if those employees are not able to perform their day-to-day duties), then those payments are eligible for forgiveness.  Importantly, for purposes of calculating compensation for each individual employee, the total amount of cash compensation eligible for forgiveness may not exceed an annual salary of $100,000, as prorated for the selected Covered Period or Alternative Payroll Covered Period.

Eligible non-payroll costs, per the Application consist of the following:

(a) Business mortgage interest payments (not including payment of principal and not including any advance payment of interest) during the Covered Period for any business mortgage obligation on real or personal property incurred before February 15, 2020;
(b) Business rent or lease payments during the Covered Period pursuant to lease agreements for real or personal property in force before February 15, 2020; and
(c) Business utility payments during the Covered Period for a service for the distribution of electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone, or internet access,  which service began before February 15, 2020.

Loan Forgiveness Reductions and Safe Harbors

A PPP loan borrower’s forgiveness amount can be reduced if: (i) the borrower has on average fewer “full-time-equivalent” (“FTE”) employees during the Covered Period/Alternative Payroll Covered Period as compared to the borrower’s chosen reference period (either (a) February 15, 2019 to June 30, 2019 or (b) January 1, 2020 to February 29, 2020) (the “FTE Reduction”); or (ii) any salary or hourly reductions (the “Salary/Hourly Reduction”) for specified employees (employees making less than $100,000 at an annualized rate during 2019) during the Covered Period/Alternative Payroll Covered Period by more than 25% compared to the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2020.

  • FTE Reduction and Exemptions and Exceptions

The FTE Reduction is calculated by dividing the Average FTE employees during the Covered Period/Alternative Payroll Covered Period by the Average FTE employees during the borrower’s chosen reference period (either: (i) February 15, 2019 to June 30, 2019; or (ii) January 1, 2020 to February 29, 2020).  Once the FTE Reduction is determined (which cannot be greater than 1), the borrower must then multiply that ratio by the total of all eligible costs paid/incurred during the Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period).  However, a borrower is exempt from application of the FTE Reduction if both of the following conditions are met: (a) the borrower reduced its average FTE employee levels in the period beginning February 15, 2020, and ending April 26, 2020; and (b) the borrower then restored its FTE employee levels by not later than June 30, 2020 to its FTE employee levels in the borrower’s pay period that included February 15, 2020.

For purposes of calculating the FTE Reduction, a borrower will not be required to include any employees in two circumstances. The first is the situation in which:  (a) the borrower made a good-faith, written offer to rehire an employee during the Covered Period (or the Alternative Payroll Covered Period) which was rejected by the employee; (b) the offer was for the same salary or wages and same number of hours as earned by such employee in the last pay period prior to the separation or reduction in hours; (c) the borrower has maintained records documenting the offer and its rejection; and (d) the borrower informed the applicable state unemployment insurance office of such employee’s rejected offer of reemployment within 30 days of the employee’s rejection of the offer.

The second situation is that instance in which any employee who during the Covered Period (or the Alternative Payroll Covered Period): (a) was fired for cause; (b) voluntarily resigned; or (c) voluntarily requested and received a reduction of their hours.  If a borrower wishes not to include employees in the preceding sentence for purposes of calculating the FTE Reduction, then records must be maintained demonstrating that each such employee was fired for cause, voluntarily resigned, or voluntarily requested a schedule reduction.

“Average FTE” during the Covered Period or Alternative Payroll Covered Period is calculated by taking the average number of hours worked per week divided by 40 (rounded to the nearest tenth). The maximum for each employee is capped at 1.0 and the Application allows for a borrower to use a simplified method that assigns a “1.0” for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and a “0.5” for employees who work fewer than 40 hours per week. Note that this is not the same formulation used by the IRS, which is a 30-hour week standard.)

  • Salary/Hourly Reduction

In addition to the FTE Reduction criteria described above, the Application includes a salary and hourly component pursuant to which the amount of loan forgiveness will be reduced, dollar for dollar, in an amount equal to the reduction of the salary or hourly wages of certain employees during the Covered Period (or the Alternative Payroll Covered Period) as compared to the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2020.  The Salary/Hourly Reduction calculation is performed on a per employee basis, not in the aggregate.  Nonetheless, the Salary/Hourly Reduction will not apply if: (i) the annual salary or hourly wage of an employee as of February 15, 2020 is greater than the average annual salary or hourly wage between February 15, 2020 and April 26, 2020; and (ii) the average annual salary or hourly wage of such employee as of June 30, 2020 is equal to or greater than the annual salary or hourly wage as of February 15, 2020.  In addition, the SBA has determined that, in order to ensure that a PPP borrower is not doubly penalized under the Salary/Hourly Reduction and the FTE Reduction, the Salary/Hourly Reduction applies only to the portion of the decline in employee salary and wages that is not attributable to the FTE Reduction. In other words, if a borrower merely reduces the hours of a full-time employee to below 40 hours per week, but does not reduce the hourly wage, then the reduction in the employee’s total wages is entirely attributable to the FTE Reduction. Therefore, the borrower is not required to conduct a Salary/Hourly Reduction calculation for such employee.

Documentation and Review Process

  • Documentation

The Application states that certain documentation must be submitted and retained by borrower. Specifically, with its Application a borrower must submit documentation supporting payroll and FTE employee and non-payroll calculations.  Furthermore, a borrower must maintain for a period of not less than six years after the date the loan is forgiven or repaid in full, the following:

a. PPP Schedule A Worksheet or its equivalent and the following:

i) Documentation supporting the listing of each individual employee in PPP Schedule A Worksheet Table 1, including the “Salary/Hourly Wage Reduction” calculation, if necessary.
ii) Documentation supporting the listing of each individual employee in PPP Schedule A Worksheet Table 2, specifically, that each listed employee received during any single pay period in 2019 compensation at an annualized rate of more than $100,000.
iii) Documentation regarding any employee job offers and refusals, firings for cause, voluntary resignations, and written requests by any employee for reductions in work schedule.
iv) Documentation supporting the PPP Schedule A Worksheet “FTE Reduction Safe Harbor”.

b. All records relating to a borrower’s PPP loan, including documentation submitted with its PPP loan application, documentation supporting such borrower’s certifications as to the necessity of the loan request and its eligibility for a PPP loan, documentation necessary to support a borrower’s loan forgiveness application, and documentation demonstrating a Borrower’s material compliance with PPP requirements.

PPP borrowers are required to make certain representations and certifications in the Application as to the information provided in the Application and supporting documentations.  For example, a borrower is required to attest that information provided in the Application and the information provided in all supporting documents is true and correct in all material respects, and a certification that the tax documents submitted to the lender are consistent with those the borrower has submitted/will submit to the IRS and/or state tax or workforce agency.  Lenders administering Applications are allowed to rely on a borrower’s certifications.  Providing an accurate calculation of the loan forgiveness amount is the responsibility of the borrower. Nonetheless, lenders are expected to perform a good-faith review, in a reasonable time, of a borrower’s calculations and supporting documents concerning amounts eligible for loan forgiveness, which may create legal risk to the PPP lender if deemed unacceptable to the SBA (discussed further below).

Lenders must also comply with applicable SBA requirements for records retention, which for federally regulated lenders means compliance with the requirements of their federal financial institution regulator.

  • Application Review

If loan documentation submitted to the SBA by the lender or any other information indicates that the PPP borrower may be ineligible for a PPP loan or may be ineligible to receive loan forgiveness, the SBA will require the lender to contact the borrower in writing to request additional information. The SBA may also request information directly from the borrower, and the lender must provide to the SBA any additional information it receives from the borrower. The SBA will consider all information provided by the borrower in response to an inquiry. Failure to respond to the SBA’s inquiry may result in a determination that the borrower was ineligible for a PPP loan or loan forgiveness. If the SBA determines that a borrower is ineligible for the PPP loan or loan forgiveness, the SBA may (i) direct the lender to deny the loan forgiveness application in whole or in part, as appropriate or (ii) seek repayment of the outstanding PPP loan balance or pursue other available remedies.  The SBA intends to issue a separate interim final rule addressing a borrower’s right to appeal a determination that borrower was ineligible for a PPP loan or loan forgiveness. 

Implications for PPP Lenders

  • Review of Loan Forgiveness Applications

For the meantime, PPP lenders need to be prepared to review and make decisions regarding loan forgiveness and therefore should implement appropriate policies and procedures.  First, upon receipt of an Application, a lender will have 60 days to issue a decision to the SBA. That decision may take the form of an approval (in whole or in part), denial or (if directed by the SBA) a denial without prejudice due to a pending SBA review of the loan for which forgiveness is sought.  Unless the SBA determines that the borrower was ineligible for a PPP loan and in the case of a denial without prejudice, the borrower may subsequently request that the lender reconsider its Application for loan forgiveness.

If a PPP lender determines that a borrower is entitled to forgiveness, then the lender must request payment from the SBA at the time the lender issues its decision to the SBA. When the lender issues its decision to the SBA approving an Application (in whole or in part), it must include the calculation form, PPP Schedule A to the Application and the (optional) PPP Borrower Demographic Information Form (if submitted to lender).  The SBA, not later than 90 days after the lender issues its decision to SBA and subject to any SBA review of the loan or loan application, will remit the appropriate forgiveness amount to the PPP lender, plus any interest accrued through the date of payment, but deducting any EIDL advance (if applicable) [Note: the SBA has stated that it will issue additional procedures on the process for advance purchases of PPP loans].

If a PPP lender determines that a borrower is not entitled to forgiveness, then the lender must provide the SBA with the reason for its denial along with the calculation form, PPP Schedule A to the Application and the (optional) PPP Borrower Demographic Information Form (if submitted to lender).  The lender must also notify the borrower in writing that the lender has issued a decision to the SBA denying the loan forgiveness application. The SBA reserves the right to review the lender’s decision in its sole discretion. Within 30 days of notice from the lender, a borrower may request that the SBA review the lender’s decision.

In connection with the review of each Application, a lender must confirm:

(i) Receipt of the borrower certifications contained in the Application;
(ii) Receipt of the documentation the borrower must submit to aid in verifying payroll and nonpayroll costs, as specified in the instructions to the Application;
(iii) The borrower’s calculations on the Application, including the dollar amount of the cash compensation, non-cash compensation, and compensation to owners claimed on Lines 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on PPP Schedule A of the Application and business mortgage interest payments, business rent or lease payments, and business utility payments claimed on Lines 2, 3, and 4 on the calculation form submitted with the Application; and 
(iv) That the borrower made the calculations on Line 10 of such calculation form correctly, by dividing the borrower’s eligible payroll costs claimed on Line 1 by 0.75.

As noted above, lenders are expected to perform a good-faith review, in a reasonable time, of a borrower’s supporting documents. While the SBA has indicated that a lender does not need to independently verify a borrower’s reported information if the borrower submits documentation supporting its request for loan forgiveness and attests that it accurately verified the payments for eligible costs, if the lender identifies errors in the borrower’s calculations or material lack of substantiation in the borrower’s supporting documents, then the lender should work with the borrower to remedy the issue.

If the SBA determines that a borrower was ineligible for the PPP loan, then the loan will not be eligible for loan forgiveness. If only a portion of the loan is forgiven, or if the forgiveness request is denied, then any remaining balance due on the loan must be repaid by the borrower on or before the two-year maturity of the loan.  If the amount remitted by the SBA to the lender exceeds the remaining principal balance of the PPP loan (because the borrower made scheduled payments on the loan after the initial deferment period), then the lender must remit the excess amount, including accrued interest, to the borrower. Importantly, the general loan forgiveness process described above applies only to loan forgiveness Applications that are not reviewed by the SBA prior to the lender’s decision on the forgiveness application.  In other words, the above is inapplicable to independent reviews of PPP loans by the SBA, which it may undertake at any time in its sole discretion.

  • Notice of Review by SBA

If a lender receives notice that the SBA is reviewing a loan, then the lender must notify the PPP borrower in writing within five business days of receipt and, within such time period, transmit to the SBA electronic copies of the following:

(a) The Borrower Application Form (SBA Form 2483 or lender’s equivalent form) and all supporting documentation provided by the borrower;
(b) The Application (SBA Form 3508 or lender’s equivalent form), and all supporting documentation provided by the borrower (if the lender has received such Application);
(c) Schedule A Worksheet to the Application;
(d) A signed and certified transcript of account;
(e) A copy of the executed note evidencing the PPP loan; and 
(f) Any other documents related to the loan requested by the SBA.

If the SBA has notified the lender that the SBA has commenced a loan review, then the lender shall not approve any Application for loan forgiveness for that loan until the SBA notifies the lender in writing that the SBA has completed its review.

  • Lender Fees

If the SBA conducts a loan review and determines that the borrower was ineligible for a PPP loan, then the lender is not eligible for a processing fee and any such fee that has been paid is subject to the SBA’s claimed clawback right. Specifically, if within one year after a PPP loan was disbursed the SBA determines that a borrower was ineligible for a PPP loan, then the SBA will seek repayment of the lender processing fee from the lender.

Importantly, however, the SBA’s determination of borrower eligibility will have no effect on the SBA’s guaranty of a loan if the lender has complied with its obligations and the document collection and retention requirements described in the lender application form (SBA Form 2484). Furthermore, if a PPP lender fails to satisfy the requirements applicable to lenders or the document collection and retention requirements described in the lender application form (SBA Form 2484), the SBA will seek repayment of the lender processing fee and may determine that the loan is not eligible for a guaranty.

In light of the above, lenders participating in the PPP and administering the review and processing of Applications should be sure to implement safeguards. Specifically, lenders should revisit their respective quality control guidelines to determine whether those guidelines should be updated or revised to encompass training for staff, procedures for spotting and handling clear errors or obvious misstatement of facts, a unique escalation process specific to PPP loan forgiveness related matters and a PPP loan forgiveness application checklist.

 

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

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.

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?