.

Client Alert

U.S. Expands Russian Energy Sector Sanctions, Proposes Major Tariff Hikes on Nearly All Russian-Origin Goods & Imposes New Sanctions on Belarus

March 11, 2022

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

Download as a PDF

Share this page

As part of its expanding sanctions against Russia, the Biden Administration on March 8, 2022, issued Executive Order 14066 (“EO 14066,” see here) to bar imports into the United States of Russian crude oil, petroleum; petroleum distillates, liquefied natural gas, coal or coal products. EO 14066 also prohibits any new investment by U.S. persons in the Russian energy sector. In the previous week, the Biden Administration has also expanded export controls on oil refinery equipment destined for Russia and extended the recently expanded export controls on Russia to apply to Belarus as well.

In addition, on March 11, President Biden announced from the White House his intention to significantly increase the tariff rate on nearly all Russian goods imported into the United States in concert with similar tariff actions by other G-7 countries. The Biden Administration will now seek new legislation to revoke Russia’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (“PNTR”) status under U.S. trade laws, which would subject Russian-origin goods to less favorable import tariff rates than the goods of almost all other countries in the world. Because multiple members of Congress in both parties already indicated support for such a measure in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this loss of PNTR status for Russia is likely to occur relatively soon.

Also on March 11, President Biden issued a new March 11 executive order (“March 11 EO”) to impose even harsher sanctions against Russia that are unique in the post-World War II period with respect to a major industrialized economy. The March 11 EO bans U.S. imports of Russian fish and seafood, alcoholic beverages, and non-industrial diamonds and also prohibits exports of luxury goods to Russia. Beyond that, March 11 EO contemplates the United States will prohibit new investments in sectors of the Russian economy beyond the energy sector already blocked by Executive Order 14066. The March 11 EO also prohibits the exportation of U.S. dollar banknotes to Russia.

President Biden and his Administration announced these latest actions as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues and Russian military action against Ukrainian cities intensifies. As we reported earlier here and here, U.S. sanctions and export controls against Russia (and now Belarus) have grown rapidly since Russia began its military campaign in Ukraine. As a result, many companies across diverse sectors such as aviation, software, entertainment, media and retail have suspended their operations in Russia, terminated business relationships with Russian entities and severed ties with affiliates in Russia. However, the new U.S. economic sanctions and export controls launched by the Biden Administration target the Russian energy sector more broadly and more specifically than previous restrictions, given its outsized contribution to the domestic Russian economy, including new prohibitions against energy product imports from Russia and U.S. investments in that particular sector in Russia. The PNTR measure and March 11 EO are further evidence of the Administration’s exceptional focus on applying unprecedented levels of economic pressure to meet the Russian attack on Ukraine. Moreover, companies should expect more such actions as both the Administration and Congress weigh even further punitive measures against Russia and Belarus.

U.S. Bans Imports of Russian Crude Oil, Petroleum and Petroleum Distillates, Liquefied Natural Gas, and Coal and Coal Products and Prohibits New U.S. Investment in Russian Energy Sector.

On March 8, President Biden signed EO 14066 to ban the import into the United States of crude oil, petroleum; petroleum distillates, liquefied natural gas, coal or coal products (collectively, the “Energy Products”) that originate from Russia. In addition, EO 14066 prohibits any new investment by U.S. persons in the Russian energy sector. The U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of EO 14066, has provided guidance (summarized below) to clarify its key requirements.

The Biden Administration had previously rejected calls to bar imports of Russian crude oil and liquefied natural gas in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, citing concerns that such a ban would raise already-high energy prices and hurt U.S. consumers and that such action also lacked support from the European Union (“EU”). However, in announcing EO 14066, President Biden noted that the United States is far less reliant on Russian energy sources than Europe and stated the United States would take such action “when others cannot” because of their reliance on Russian energy supplies. Moreover, Congressional action to ban imports of Russian oil and gas appears imminent (see below), which could codify certain elements of EO 14066 into U.S. law.

However, it is important to keep some perspective on the ultimate economic significance of such U.S. import barriers against, say, Russian crude oil that would normally then be refined in the United States into other fuel products such as gasoline, diesel fuel or aviation fuel. For example, according to U.S. Government data, the United States imported about 27.7 million barrels of Russian crude oil in 2020, which made up only 1.3% of the nation’s total crude oil imports that year. By way of comparison, the United States imported more than 1.3 billion barrels of crude oil from Canada, which represented some 61% of the 2.2 billion barrels of crude oil the United States imported in 2020.  Expressed another way, according to U.S. Government data, Russia exported roughly 5.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and condensates in 2020, so the United States imported only five days of Russia’s total global exports of those products that year. All-in, in 2020, the U.S. imported roughly only about 7% of its total Energy Products from Russia.

In contrast, it is estimated that the EU imports roughly one-quarter of all its crude oil and about 40% of its natural gas from Russia, so the United States and the EU would naturally view the practicality of such a total ban on Energy Product imports from Russia quite differently. As much as the United States and the EU want to coordinate and adopt largely parallel sanctions on Russia to address the dire situation in Ukraine and as much as the EU would no doubt prefer to reduce its own energy dependence upon Russia at this point, the EU will likely have to chart its own more gradual reductions of such Russian energy imports to avoid unacceptable damage to its own national economies among the EU Member States.

Ban on Russian Energy Product Imports.

EO 14066 expressly prohibits the importation into the United States of Russian-origin “crude oil, petroleum, petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas, coal, and coal products.” In a guidance published the same day, OFAC interprets this prohibition to apply to “goods produced, manufactured, extracted, or processed in the Russian Federation” unless they have been “incorporated or substantially transformed into a foreign-made product.”1

Although the term “substantial transformation” is not defined within OFAC’s latest guidance, it is well-known in U.S. customs law, which holds that the origin of an imported article corresponds to the last place where it undergoes a change in its name, character and use through a significant manufacturing process. Accordingly, a U.S. importer of any manufactured Energy Product such as petroleum or petroleum distillates or coal products (if the importer does not already have such information) should undertake immediate due diligence on its supply chain to verify whether that product is of Russian-origin or instead has undergone a “substantial transformation” in a third country to confer a new country of origin that would avoid the EO 14066 ban. However, since crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal do not usually undergo any intermediate manufacturing process before importation, it is unlikely those particular Russian-origin Energy Products will be able to benefit from the “substantial transformation” exception in EO 14066.

The importation ban came into effect on March 8, 2022. The same day, OFAC issued a new General License 16 (“GL 16”) to allow U.S. persons to wind-down their importation of Russian-origin Energy Products that are based on any pre-March 8, 2022 written agreements. The GL 16 wind-down window of 45 days will end at 12:01 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time on April 22, 2022. GL 16 also explicitly authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the importation of such covered Energy Products during this wind-down period, such as the payment for such purchases or the logistics for their shipment to the United States.

Ban on U.S. Investment in the Russian Energy Sector.

EO 14066 also prohibits U.S. persons from making any new investment in the energy sector of Russia unless otherwise authorized by OFAC. Although EO 14066 itself does not define what is considered the energy sector of Russia, OFAC broadly interprets that economic sector to include

the procurement, exploration, extraction, drilling, mining, harvesting, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, or transport of petroleum, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, natural gas liquids, or petroleum products or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal or wood or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels, the development, production, generation, transmission or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, electrical, thermal, and renewable energy sources.2

OFAC’s guidance also interprets “new investment” to mean “a commitment or contribution of funds or other assets for, or a loan or other extension of credit to, new energy sector activities (not including maintenance or repair) located or occurring” in Russia on or after March 8, 2022.3 OFAC further interprets a loan or extension of credit to include many diverse forms of financial transactions such as currency swaps, purchases of debt, purchases of loans made by another, sales of financial assets subject to repurchase, certain refinancing, issuance of standby letters of credit, and drawdowns on existing lines of credit. EO 14066’s text does not seem to cover existing investments held by U.S. persons, and it does not clearly cover trading in publicly-traded shares, but OFAC may issue further guidance on these subjects. (Other future U.S. person investments in sectors of the Russian economy outside the energy sector have also been addressed in the new March 11 EO, as explained in the following section of this article.)

March 11 Executive Order.

The March 11 EO4 broadly targets the Russian economy in ways that are unprecedented for a major U.S. trading partner since the end of World War II. The March 11 EO specifically calls for bans on imports of Russian-origin fish and seafood, alcoholic beverages and non-industrial diamonds and on exports of luxury goods to Russia. In addition, the March 11 EO also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Commerce to broaden both import and export bans to other products. The March 11 EO also empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to ban new investments by U.S. persons in entire sectors of the Russian economy beyond the EO 14066 ban against new investments in the Russian energy sector.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the March 11 EO is its prohibition on the exportation, re-exportation or supply of U.S. dollar denominated banknotes to Russia. This broad ban will adversely affect the Russian Central Bank as well as Russian companies and ordinary Russian citizens. By limiting Russia’s access to such U.S. banknotes, that will further reduce the value of the Russian ruble in relation to the U.S. dollar and make it more difficult for the Russian government and Russian companies or individuals to repay U.S. dollar-denominated debts or to purchase imports that would be payable in U.S. dollars.

Along with the March 11 EO, OFAC issued several new general licenses to soften the blow for certain persons. OFAC created a short two-week window to wind-down U.S. import transactions affected by the new ban. OFAC will also allow U.S. persons to continue making certain personal remittances and payments for personal maintenance in Russia despite the ban on sending U.S. dollar banknotes to Russia. Nongovernmental organizations also will be able to engage in certain humanitarian and democracy-building activities in the recently sanctioned Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic regions of Ukraine.

Blocking Sanctions on More Russian Oligarchs and Government Leaders.

On March 3, 2022, OFAC imposed blocking sanctions on a large number of wealthy Russian individuals, their close relatives, and certain aircraft and recreational vessels owned by them. These Russian oligarchs are reputedly tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. As a result of these sanctions and coordinated actions by U.S. allies, a global hunt is underway to seize the sanctioned superyachts belonging to these Russian oligarchs. In the same announcement, OFAC also designated for blocking sanctions several organizations and individuals that are tied to Russia’s worldwide online propaganda campaign. On March 11, OFAC announced additional blocking sanctions against key Russian leaders including Dmitriy Sergeevich Peskov, President Putin’s spokesperson, and his immediate family members.

Expanded U.S. Export Controls for Belarus and Russia.

The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has also issued four new notices that expand U.S. export controls for items destined for Belarus or Russia.

  • On March 2, 2022, BIS imposed on Belarus the same expanded export controls that it had announced the previous week for Russia, which we previously reported here and made other changes to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). The BIS announcement of this action is available here.
    • Belarus is now subject to the expanded export controls on Categories 3 through 9 of the Commerce Control List (“CCL”); the new foreign direct product (“FDP”) rules announced for Russia and Russian military end users (“MEUs”); expanded export controls for reasons of nuclear non-proliferation concerns; and MEU and military-intelligence end-user prohibitions. BIS also amended the availability of License Exceptions AVS, CCD, and ENC with respect to Belarus under the expanded CCL and FDP controls;
    • BIS added two Belarusian entities to the Entity List; and
    • BIS removed an exemption for mass-market encryption items for eight Russian entities on the Entity List.
  • On March 3, 2022, BIS expanded the scope of oil refinery equipment that require a BIS export license to export to or be transferred within Russia. The new rule retains a preexisting restriction on exports of oil and gas items that are intended for use in Russian oil and gas projects or where the end use is unknown and now adds a list of oil refinery items under a new Supplement No. 4 to EAR Part 746 that will require a BIS export license for any exports to Russia whether or not those items are intended for use in oil projects or refineries in Russia. Supplement No. 4 provides both Schedule B and six-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (or “HTS”) codes for the covered items, which will now include, among other things, oil and gas field wire line and downhole equipment, gas separation equipment, and similar gear such as alkylation and isomerization units, delayed cokers, flexicoking units, hydrogen generation technology, refinery fuel gas treatment and sulphur recovery technology or thermal cracking units.
  • On March 3, 2022, BIS added 91 Russian-owned entities to its Entity List under 96 new entries. The U.S. Government believes there is a significant risk that these entities are engaging in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. U.S. exporters should take particular notice that these 91 Russian-owned entities are located not only in Russia itself but also in Belize, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Malta, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom.
  • On March 4, 2022, BIS added the Republic of Korea (called “South Korea” in the EAR) to the list of countries that are exempt from the new “foreign direct product” (“FDP”) export license requirements imposed on third country exports to Belarus and Russia under EAR Section 746.8. This exemption is based on BIS’s determination that South Korea has its own robust export controls regime that makes the additional EAR-based FDP controls unnecessary. The currently exempt countries from the additional FDP requirements appear in Supplement No. 3 to EAR Part 746.

Potential Removal of PNTR Status and Congressional Action on Russia. 

The On March 11, the Biden Administration announced that the United States and the other G-7 countries will jointly seek to revoke Russia’s “most favored nation” (“MFN”) or “permanent normal trade relation” (“PNTR”) status under their respective domestic trade laws.5 Assuming this action proceeds, Russia would thereby lose the principal benefit of its World Trade Organization (“WTO”) membership6 with respect to some major trading partners for exports of its Energy Products and other Russian goods. This concerted action by the United States and its allies will greatly burden Russian exports to countries that represent more than half of the global economy, although other WTO member states may choose to continue to grant MFN status to Russian-origin goods under the WTO system.

Under U.S. trade laws, the United States grants PNTR status to enable free international trade with another nation. In U.S. practice, PNTR for a foreign nation means that it receives all the normal benefits of free trade, such as lower tariffs that are enjoyed equally by other U.S. trading partners that have PNTR under U.S. law. A nation with PNTR status will not be disadvantaged in trading with the United States as compared to other U.S. trading partners.

Revoking Russia’s PNTR status would thus immediately raise the U.S. tariffs on nearly all imported goods that originate from Russia (which would be goods other than the Russian Energy Products that are now barred outright from importation under EO 14066 or the other products that are banned under March 11 EO). Canada adopted just such a punitive measure late last week and placed a 35% tariff on all imports from Russia. Currently, under U.S. law, among all the nations of the world, only Cuba and North Korea lack PNTR status. As a result of not having PNTR status, Cuban and North Korean goods are subject to much higher U.S. import tariff rates (as high as 45% or even 110% in some instances) to the extent the importation of such goods is not already prohibited outright by U.S. trade embargoes imposed on those countries.

The Biden Administration’s announcement on PNTR coincides with Congressional efforts to address the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including Congressional action to revoke PNTR status for Russia. The U.S. Congress has been considering further punitive measures against Russia, which could add yet more (or more intense) U.S. economic sanctions and export controls. However, it is unclear what specific action that Congress may take as a compromise package is still being negotiated between the House of Representatives and the Senate, with particular attention to certain Russian energy or financial services companies. In monitoring these possible Congressional approaches to the Ukraine crisis, the Biden Administration may have formulated its own Energy Product import prohibition in EO 14066, its PNTR revocation proposal (as summarized above), and March 11 EO, at least in part, to get ahead of potential Congressionally-mandated efforts to do the same.

# # # # #

If you have any questions regarding this eUpdate, please contact the attorneys profiled below. Dorsey’s attorneys routinely counsel clients to address and mitigate the impact of U.S. economic sanctions, trade embargoes, export controls and other measures that affect cross-border transactions.


1 OFAC Frequently Asked Question 1,019 (Mar. 8, 2022), available at: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faq/added/2022-03-08.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 The White House also issued an explanatory Fact Sheet to accompany March 11 EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/11/fact-sheet-united-states-european-union-and-g7-to-announce-further-economic-costs-on-russia/  
5 On August 22, 2012, Russia became a WTO member after a 19-year membership accession process. WTO rules require that each WTO member grant newly acceding members “immediate and unconditional” MFN or PNTR status. To comply with those WTO requirements, the United States extended PNTR status to Russia through Congressional action that President Obama signed into law effective as of December 14, 2012.
6 Both the United States and Russia are signatories to certain WTO agreements that generally require MFN or PNTR treatment for imports from other WTO member nations. Ending Russia’s PNTR status would likely then lead to WTO trade disputes that might take years of international trade litigation between the United States and Russia to reach any meaningful conclusion.

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

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

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

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

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

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

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

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