.

Client Alert

The OCC’s CRA Regulatory Reboot

May 29, 2020

by Joseph Lynyak and Erin Bryan

Download as a PDF

Share this page

1. Introduction

Immediately prior to his departure as the Comptroller of the Currency, Joseph Otting finalized the OCC’s restructuring of its version of the Community Reinvestment Act’s implementing regulations (the “CRA Amendments”)1—while leaving to the newly appointed Acting Comptroller, Brian Brooks, the task of explaining and defending it to both the national bank community and consumer advocates.2

Unlike the approach taken by the prior version of the CRA Regulations, the CRA Amendments deviate from the three-pronged approach which identified three required CRA-related tests (i.e., the lending, deposit and services tests), and replaced them with two distinct assessment areas, specific CRA-approved activities within those assessment areas, and the prospect of expanded community investments and activities that previously were frequently disallowed by CRA compliance examinations.

Perhaps the most important change adopted by the CRA Amendments was the use of quantitative measurements to be applied when evaluating a national bank’s CRA performance, including multiplier factors to be applied to preferred CRA-approved investments and activities. (As discussed below, however, the CRA Amendments omit the actual metrics to be applied to the quantitative measurements to achieve outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve and substantial non-compliance CRA ratings.)

While the OCC’s CRA Amendments are commendable for recognizing that the American banking system is no longer solely a brick and mortar platform, the new approach is complicated (i.e., HMDA-reporting complicated) and will require wholesale modifications to many national banks’ CRA strategies, operations and reporting systems.  Accordingly, the phase-in of the new CRA compliance scheme will take effect over several years, based upon the size and category of the particular national bank.

During this phase-in period, however, it is likely that the OCC will participate in a continuing debate with both the national bank community and consumer groups over whether the CRA Amendments represent an effective new approach to evaluating a national bank’s CRA performance, or whether this regulatory effort lacks ascertainable benefits advancing the goals of the CRA.

What follows is an overview and summary of the more important changes made by the CRA Amendments, including a discussion of the new nomenclature being employed, as well as the effective dates for compliance.

2. Discussion

The CRA Amendments make major changes in four areas of the prior CRA framework.  Specifically, the CRA Amendments adopt: (a) new requirements for delineating a national bank’s CRA assessment area(s); (b) expanded and identifiable qualifying CRA activities and investments (formerly merely identified as activities falling within the broad yet undefined categories of the lending, investment, and services tests); (c) instructions to OCC examiners for evaluating a national bank’s CRA performance; and (d) reporting standards to be developed and implemented by a national bank.

Each of these modifications made by the CRA Regulations will be discussed separately below.

A. CRA Revised Assessment Area Delineations

The genesis for the adoption of the CRA in 1977 was the criticism that many state and national banks failed to provide necessary loans and other non-deposit services to the communities from which they gathered deposits.  Accordingly, because virtually all banking was centered around a bank’s branch operations, a bank’s CRA evaluation was focused on the “assessment areas” that reflected the geographic areas surrounding a bank’s branch network.

In recognition that geographic location remains an important component to most national bank’s operations, the CRA Amendments retain the use of a geographic assessment area, but add an important new deposit assessment area, which reflects the migration of a national bank’s lending and deposit functions to technologies, including internet and mobile banking and similar services unrelated to geographic proximity.

The geographic component is now termed a “facility-based assessment area,” and requires a national bank to delineate an assessment area encompassing each location where the bank maintains a main office, a branch, or a non-branch deposit-taking facility (which need not include ATM locations) as well as the surrounding locations in which the bank has originated or purchased a substantial portion of its qualifying retail loans.3

When delineating a facility-based assessment area, the area must consist of:

  • One whole metropolitan statistical area;
  • The whole nonmetropolitan area of a state;
  • One or more whole, contiguous metropolitan divisions in a single metropolitan statistical area; or
  • One or more whole, contiguous counties or county equivalents in a single metropolitan statistical area or nonmetropolitan area.

While the CRA Amendments recognize that smaller-sized national banks will continue to gather deposits within their respective facility-based assessment areas, larger-sized banks and non-traditional national banks (e.g., internet banks) that gather more than 50% of their deposits from outside of their facility-based assessment areas must also delineate “deposit-based assessment areas” or “DBAAs.”4  A DBAA is an area where the national bank receives more than 5% of its retail domestic deposits (outside of its facility assessment areas), and must be delineated to consist of: 

  • One whole state;
  • One whole metropolitan statistical area;
  • The entire nonmetropolitan area of a state;
  • One or more whole, contiguous metropolitan divisions in a single metropolitan statistical area;
  • The remaining geographic area of a state, metropolitan statistical area, nonmetropolitan area, or metropolitan division other than where it has a facility-based assessment area; or
  • One or more whole, contiguous counties or county equivalents in a single metropolitan statistical or nonmetropolitan area.5

B. Identifying Qualifying CRA Activities and Investments

One of the consistent complaints regarding CRA compliance by banks has centered on the qualitative approach taken by examiners in regard to the approval of activities that qualified for CRA credit.  Due in part to an absence of interpretative guidance by the prudential banking regulators, new and innovative investments and programs to benefit low-and-moderate income communities were avoided by banks because of the risk that a creative and innovative yet productive CRA project would be rejected for CRA credit.

It is in this area of compliance that the CRA Amendments provide the most potential benefit to national banks—which is accomplished by specifically expanding and identifying the universe of investments, loans and services that qualify for CRA credit.  First, the CRA Amendments replace the lending, deposit and services tests with a broader scope of CRA-related activities that qualify to receive CRA credit.  Second, the CRA Amendments identify specific categories of activities that qualify for CRA credit.  Finally, the CRA Amendments will provide national banks with pre-approved lists of specific loans, investments and other activities that fall within the scope of the new CRA categories, as well as an ability to receive pre-approval from the OCC for innovative CRA-related activities that formerly were rejected during CRA examinations.

In regard to CRA-related functions by a national bank, the CRA Amendments establish new terminology for national bank-related functions that may qualify for CRA credit by a national bank:

  • A community development investment—which means a lawful investment, membership share, deposit, legally binding commitment to invest that is reported on the national bank’s Call Report in Schedule RC-L;
  • A community development loan—which means a loan, line of credit, or commitment to lend in the loan categories identified in the CRA Amendments; and
  • Community development services—which means bank employee time spent volunteering as a representative of the national bank on activities (or supporting activities) identified in the CRA Amendments and OCC interpretative guidance.6

The CRA Amendments follow this broad approach to CRA-eligible bank functions by incorporating into the CRA Regulations numerous categories of loans and other banking services that qualify for CRA credit if they partially or indirectly benefit low- or moderate-income (“LMI”) communities within a national bank’s delineated assessment area(s), and include: 

  • Retail loans;
  • Community development loans, community development investments, and community development services, including:
    • Affordable housing;
    • Another bank’s community development loan, community development investment, or community development service;
    • Community support services, such as child care, education, workforce development and job training programs, health services, and housing services, that partially or primarily serve or assist LMI  individuals or families;
    • Economic development, which means activities that provide financing for or support small businesses or family farms;
    • Essential infrastructure that partially or primarily serves LMI communities:
    • A family farm’s purchase or lease of farm land, equipment, and other farm-related inputs for the family farm’s use in operating the farm (including technical assistance);
    • Federal, state, local, or tribal government programs, projects, or initiatives that partially or primarily serve LMI individuals or families;  and
    • Financial literacy programs or education or homebuyer counseling;

      and

  • Owner-occupied and rental housing development, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, or maintenance in Indian country or other tribal and native lands;
    • Qualified opportunity funds that benefit low- or moderate-income qualified opportunity zones; and
    • Other activities and ventures undertaken, including capital investments and loan participations, by a bank in cooperation with a minority depository institution, women’s depository institution, Community Development Financial Institution, or low-income credit unions.7

When reviewing this list of CRA-approved categories, a national bank should note that in each case there must be a discernable nexus to a targeted CRA-related person or entity (e.g., LMI individuals and communities, small businesses and small farm lending, etc.)  However, a review of this expanded approach to CRA qualified loans and other investments indicates that the OCC now intends to expand the reach of CRA to loans, investments and topics formerly not deemed CRA-related for credit.8

This conclusion is amply supported by Section 25.06 of the CRA Regulations, which states that the OCC will publish a list of activities that fall under the rubric of a CRA-qualified activity.9

Significantly, to underscore this change in perspective, simultaneously with the issuance of the CRA Amendments, the OCC published its initial list of approved CRA-qualified activities, which includes dozens of loans, investments and other services that will specifically receive CRA credit when performed or engaged-in by a national bank.10

C. CRA Examination and Compliance Reviews

To evaluate a national bank’s CRA performance, the CRA Amendments improve on the former CRA examination approach by quantifying the value of the aggregate CRA loans, investments and other CRA-qualified activities provided or engaged-in by a national bank—by calculating a sum of all qualifying activities based upon the following:

  • The quantified dollar value of qualifying CRA loans and community development investments originated, made, or performed by the national bank during the year (or on the bank’s balance sheet during the year); and
  • The aggregate:
    • Quantified dollar value of community development services conducted during the year;
    • Quantified dollar value of in-kind donations made during the year; and
    • Quantified dollar value of monetary donations made during the year.11

While the adoption of a quantitative value calculation may be a welcomed approach for determining objectively a national bank’s CRA performance, the CRA Amendments do not include the performance metrics for awarding a CRA rating (i.e., outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve and unsatisfactory).

This is a very unfortunate yet critical omission that will prevent national banks from commencing the process of building models to access and monitor their respective CRA performance based upon the requirements of the CRA Amendments.12

D. Record Retention Requirements

As noted above, while national banks may have to wait until the OCC provides advice regarding the performance metrics that will apply to CRA examinations under the CRA Amendments, a cursory review of the record-keeping requirements is reminiscent of the data reporting requirements now required by HMDA and the CFPB’s Regulation C13—except that the universe of required record-keeping will include a national bank’s LMI loan and investment portfolio across its assessment areas.

While the quantification of CRA credit that now will be possible pursuant to the CRA Amendments may benefit national banks by bringing greater certainty to the CRA compliance process, the structuring of a reporting system for CRA-related activities may be costly and time consuming.  Among other things, the range of CRA-qualified loans, investments and services is broader than solely consumer credit—which means that capturing CRA data will require a monitoring system that will include CRA-qualified commercial loans as well.
In the minimum, implementing an appropriate CRA record-keeping system and operating the same has cemented the job security of a national bank’s CRA compliance professionals.

3. Conclusions

Whether the clarity and predictability of the OCC’s CRA Amendments outweighs the concomitant complexity and compliance expense will likely constitute the response by the national bank community as the impact of the CRA Amendments is evaluated.

Thankfully, the effective dates for the various provisions of the CRA Amendments range from January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 (depending upon whether the national bank falls in the category of small, intermediate, wholesale and limited purpose national bank, or larger national bank).14  (The technical effective date for the changes made by the CRA Amendments is October 1, 2021, although compliance is optional as noted immediately above.)  However, a national bank may elect to effect compliance earlier than the stated dates the OCC has indicated, and transitional accommodations with individual national banks will be considered.  During the next several months, the OCC will likely clarify several of the concerns identified in this Alert, and will begin to promulgate revised examination procedures that may further clarify appropriate compliance steps that a national bank should consider.

*       *       *

Please note that this Alert is intended to summarize several of the major changes made by the CRA Amendments to the current version of the OCC’s CRA Regulations.


1 https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/federal-register/2020/nr-occ-2020-63a.pdf.
2 12 U.S.C § 2901 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. § 25.11 et seq.  For purposes of this analysis, unless otherwise indicated, references to the OCC’s CRA Regulations will refer to the CRA Regulations as modified by the CRA Amendments.
3 Section 25.09(a) of the OCC Regulations.  In its discretion, a national bank may also include within a delineated assessment areas the locations of one or more deposit-taking ATMs.
4 When viewed from the perspective of the old CRA Regulations, the new assessment requirements resemble in many ways the specialized CRA plans that have been adopted by national banks with non-traditional business plans.
5 Section 25.07(c) of the CRA Regulations.  The CRA Amendments indicate that when delineating either a facility-based assessment area or a deposit-based assessment area, a bank may identify the smallest permissible geographic area permitted or may delineate a larger assessment area that includes more expansive geographic locations as permitted by the CRA Amendments.
6 Section 25.03 of the OCC Regulations.
7 Section 25.04 of the OCC Regulations.
8 For example, an infrastructure project with intended result of employing LMI individuals should now qualify for CRA credit, even though the project may not be located in an LMI community.
9 See, https://www.occ.gov/topics/consumers-and-communities/cra/cra-qualifying-activities.pdf.  The list of qualifying CRA activities will be updated regularly and published at www.occ.gov.
10 Importantly, a national bank wishing to receive pre-approval for a proposed CRA activity may request in advance an approval from the OCC that the proposed activity will receive appropriate CRA credit.  See Section 25.05(b) of the CRA Regulations.
11 Section 25.08 of the OCC Regulations.  When making these value calculations, certain activities will be assigned a “multiplier” factor as an indication of the value the OCC places on that investment or activity, including support for minority depository institutions, CDFIs, affordable housing development loans, and certain other community development services.  See, Section 25.08(b) of the OCC Regulations.
12 Further, when examining for CRA compliance, the CRA Amendments require that the retail lending distribution test be applied, including product lines (if applicable) for home mortgage lending, small business loans, auto loans, consumer loans and small farm loans.  See Section 25.12 of the OCC Regulations.  (How these retail tests will interface with the new quantitative CRA calculations will require considerable additional clarification by the OCC.)
13 12 C.F.R. § 1003.1 et seq.
14 In perhaps the most unartful definitional approach contained in the CRA Amendments, a small national bank is a bank with assets of less than $600 million in four of the last five calendar quarters; an intermediate national bank is a bank that exceeds the small bank size threshold and has assets of $2.5 billion or less in four out of five of the last five calendar quarters; a larger sized national bank is a bank with assets exceeding $2.5 billion; a wholesale bank is a bank not in the business of specified retail lending; and an internet bank is undefined.

 

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

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.

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.