.

Client Alert

UK To Adopt New Powers Over M&A Activity To Protect National Security

April 6, 2021

by Mark Taylor

Download as a PDF

Share this page

 

Background

Draft legislation, which is currently being debated in the UK Parliament, will introduce a new regime granting the UK Secretary of State robust powers to review, vary or block acquisitions which may pose a risk to the national security of the UK. The proposed legislation is intended to provide the Secretary of State with powers similar to that of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) while maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive forum for business and an openness to foreign investment.

The new legislation, known in its draft form as the National Security and Investment Bill and to be enacted as the National Security and Investment Act (“NSIA”), will not come into effect until later this year. However, when it becomes law it will have retroactive effect from 12 November 2020. It is therefore important that clients contemplating any transaction which has a UK element and is likely to come within the ambit of the new law obtain advice now to assess whether that transaction may be at risk of challenge once the Act becomes law. Note that notwithstanding that NSIA is not yet in force, the Secretary of State has implemented some procedures to assist clients and advisers in determining whether a deal completed prior to the Act coming into force may be at risk of challenge once the new law comes into effect (see below under “Current Application of NSIA”).

Summary

The new law will empower the Secretary of State to call-in for review a broad range of transactions involving a change of control of a UK entity or asset where it considers that they may have the effect of jeopardising UK national security interests.

In addition, NSIA will require any purchaser proposing to acquire a “qualifying entity” in one or more of 17 specified “sensitive sectors” to make a mandatory notification of that transaction to the Secretary of State in advance of the deal closing. A purchaser may not complete a transaction in this category until clearance has been given. As presently envisaged (and assuming that no amendments are made during the current parliamentary debates), a notifiable transaction which completes without prior notification will be void.

Where a transaction is not in a “sensitive sector” and so does not fall into the mandatory notification regime described above, the parties may still avail themselves of a voluntary notification regime. This might be considered to be prudent where the parties consider that, whilst not within one of the “sensitive sectors”, the transaction may none-the-less be considered by the Secretary of State as having the potential to jeopardise UK national security and is therefore susceptible to being called-in for review (and potentially, made the subject of remedial action under the new powers).

Finally, the new law will empower the Secretary of State to address risks to national security by imposing remedies which may range from the imposition of conditions to requiring offending transactions to be unwound to protect national security.

Application of the new law

The new law will apply to any acquisition of control of a qualifying entity or a qualifying asset at any time from and after 12 November 2020.

As is to be expected, the expression “control” is widely drawn. It will include, an acquisition: (i) of more than 15% of economic ownership or voting rights; (ii) the increase of economic ownership or voting rights from 25% or less to more than 25%; the increase of economic ownership or voting rights from 50% or less to more than 50%; or the increase of economic ownership or voting rights from 75% or less to more than 75%. It also includes securing the ability to exercise or control the exercise of voting rights sufficient to pass or block resolutions of the entity or otherwise becoming able to exert material influence on the policy of the qualifying entity.

A “qualifying entity” is any entity, including a company, a limited liability partnership, or any other body corporate. If the qualifying entity is based outside of the UK it is still a qualifying entity if it carries on activities or supplies goods or services to persons in the UK.

A “qualifying asset” is any asset, including land, tangible property, and ideas, information or techniques. If the qualifying asset is based outside of the UK it remains a qualifying asset if it is used in connection with activities carried on in the UK or the supply of goods or services to persons in the UK.

Of particular note is that fact that there are no materiality thresholds for transactions to which the new law will apply, whether monetary, market share related or otherwise and, as previously noted, the new law will apply equally to entirely UK domestic transactions and to cross-border transactions. As currently proposed, the new law will not contain a specific definition of “national security” for fear of facilitating loopholes.

Notification under the NSIA

Mandatory Notification Required for “Sensitive Sectors”

As mentioned earlier, where the proposed acquisition of control relates to a qualifying entity in a sensitive sector there is a mandatory obligation on a purchaser to notify the Secretary of State prior to that change of control so as to enable it to exercise its power of review to the extent that, following notification, it determines that the proposed transaction justifies review. A notifiable acquisition that completes without the prior approval of the Secretary of State will be deemed void and of no legal effect. It is however unclear how this will apply in practice to non-UK assets or transactions.

Under the legislation currently before Parliament, there are 17 “sensitive sectors”. These are: (1) Advanced Materials; (2) Advanced Robotics; (3) Artificial Intelligence; (4) Civil Nuclear; (5) Communications; (6) Computing Hardware; (7) Critical Suppliers to Government; (8) Critical Suppliers to the Emergency Services; (9) Cryptographic Authentication; (10) Data Infrastructure; (11) Defence; (12) Energy; (13) Engineering Biology; (14) Military and Dual Use; (15) Quantum Technologies; (16) Satellite and Space Technologies; and (17) Transport.

The wide ranging definition of “notifiable acquisition” in the draft legislation means that mandatory notification may be required for a broad range of transactions. For example, if a US-head-quartered group of companies that is being acquired includes a 15% minority ownership of an English transportation company, an acquisition of that group is likely to be a notifiable acquisition. Similarly, an investment round where a US venture capital fund increases its shareholding from 10% to 26% of an English AI start-up is also likely to be a notifiable acquisition.

It is expected that in the short, medium and, indeed, longer term, refinements will be made to the definitions of these sectors in the interests of clarity and workability.

Voluntary Notification Facility for other sectors

The NSIA will also provide a voluntary notification facility for acquisitions which are not in sensitive sectors but may none-the-less be susceptible to call-in because they may be regarded by the Secretary of State as jeopardising UK national security interests.

Effect of Notification

Notification and approval, whether made and obtained under the voluntary regime or the mandatory regime for sensitive sectors, will provide certainty to the buyer and the seller that the deal will not be at risk of being unwound or made subject to other sanctions at the instance of the Secretary for State in the future provided that the approval was granted on the basis of accurate disclosure of all material facts.

The “Call-In” Power

Issue of “call-in notice” following notification of an impending deal

After receiving a mandatory or voluntary notification of a transaction or proposed transaction, the Secretary of State has 30 working days to decide whether to issue a “call-in notice” or (where the notification is made in advance) to decide whether the proposed acquisition can proceed without further action. A call-in notice may only be issued where the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the transaction or proposed transaction may pose a risk to national security. After a call-in notice has been issued, the transaction cannot be completed without the approval of the Secretary of State. Some initial guidance has already been issued on this aspect of the proposed new law (and it is likely that this will be subject to further refinement in the future).

The issue of a call-in notice will begin an initial 30 working day “assessment period” to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether the transaction poses a risk to national security. The assessment period may be extended by a further 45 working days and there is also scope for the purchaser and Secretary of State to agree a further voluntary extension to the assessment period. Following its review, the Secretary of State will determine either that remedies are required or that no further action is to be taken.

Issue of “call-in notice” at election of Secretary of State

Save where the Secretary of State has approved a deal after receiving a mandatory or voluntary notice, the Secretary of State may, on the grounds of national security, issue a call-in notice for any transaction to which the new law applies within 6 months of it becoming aware of that deal, for up to 5 years after the closing of the deal. The assessment period available to the Secretary of State following the issue of that call-in notice and the rights to extend that period, are as described in the paragraph above. If a notifiable acquisition was not approved, or if false information was provided to the Secretary of State with respect to any transaction, then the Secretary of State may issue a call-in notice. In the case of false information, the Secretary of State has 6 months from the day the information was found to be false to issue a call-in notice. However, in the case of the non-notification of a notifiable transaction no time limit applies.

The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of becoming aware of a notifiable transaction which has completed without having made a mandatory notification, or at the request of an interested party, either issue a call-in notice to review the transaction, or issue a validation notice, which confirms that no further action will be taken with respect to the transaction and, must importantly, that it is not void. Note that, in the absence of a validation notice, such transactions will be and remain void. This could have severe ramifications for third parties dealing with the affected entity. In the case of smaller technology companies which do not necessarily have the time or resource to evaluate whether the new law applies and which may be reluctant to incur advisors’ fees, we predict that there will be numerous instances of transactions completing without having made the required notification and that such companies and/or interested parties having dealings with them, will account for a high number of post transaction “validation” applications.

Powers and Sanctions

The Secretary of State will have wide-ranging powers to impose conditions and/or order the unwinding of transactions and/or the divestment of certain assets or operations where it considers this to be necessary to protect national security and, pending its final determination, may issue interim orders as it considers fit. Decisions of the Secretary of State may be challenged by way of judicial review.

A natural person who fails to comply with an order under the new provisions or who completes a notifiable acquisition without approval from the Secretary of State may incur imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to £10 million. If the offence is committed by a business, the fine may be anything up to the greater of £10 million or 5% of global turnover (including subsidiaries).

Current Application of NSIA

As NSIA is not yet law in the UK, there is currently no formal process for businesses to make notifications to, or to receive clearance from, the Secretary of State and buyers and sellers may conclude deals without regard to the notification provisions referred to above. However, once NSIA is enacted, deals concluded after 12 November 2020 which may have national security implications in the UK may be at risk of being called-in for review and possible sanction. This creates unwelcome uncertainty for buyers and sellers at the present time.

To assist in alleviating some of this uncertainty, the UK government is encouraging parties to engage in informal discussions with the incoming review body known as the “Investment Screening Unit” (“ISU”) to consider the prospective application of the NSIA to transactions which are likely to close during this interim period. If sufficient information is provided, the ISU has indicated that it is prepared to conduct a preliminary review and, where appropriate, provide a non-binding assurance as to whether a given transaction is likely to be called in for review when the new law comes into effect. At best, the obtaining of such non-binding assurance provides comfort to the parties. We also think it likely that the fact that information has been provided and reviewed prior to NSIA coming into force would mean that the 6 month call-in period allowed to the Secretary of State once it becomes aware of a transaction having occurred will commence on the date on which the new law comes into effect. Finally, the ISU has indicated that, while it will review all transactions which are notified to it, it is unlikely to issue call-in notices with respect to transactions which clearly are not at risk of jeopardising the national security of the UK.

Ask Dorsey London

Dorsey’s London Office can provide support and assistance to prospective buyers and sellers within and outside the UK who may be affected by the new law. Our experienced lawyers will provide advice on the potential impact of the new provisions to particular transactions and, where appropriate, will arrange and conduct discussions with the ISU to assist in assessing the risk for transactions conducted in the interim period.

 

Firm Highlights

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

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

News

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

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

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

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

News

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

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

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.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

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.

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

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey