.

Client Alert

The SEC Adopts Significant New Rules for Private Fund Advisers

August 29, 2023

by David Tang and Michael Schmieder

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On August 23, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and rule amendments (the “Final Rules”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) to enhance the regulation of private fund advisers.[1]  The Final Rules also update the existing compliance rule under the Advisers Act that applies to all registered investment advisers.  The SEC designed the Final Rules to protect private fund investors by “increasing visibility into certain practices involving compensation schemes, sales practices, and conflicts of interest through disclosure; establishing requirements to address such practices that have the potential to lead to investor harm; and restricting practices that are contrary to the public interest and the protection of investors.”[2]

Certain Notable Changes from the Proposed Rules

The Final Rules include certain notable changes from the private fund adviser rules originally proposed by the SEC in February 2022  (the “Proposed Rules”).[3]

  • Unlike the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules do not flatly prohibit the restricted activities discussed below. Instead, the Final Rules permit advisers to engage in the restricted activities subject to providing investor disclosure, and in certain cases, obtaining investor consent. 
  • The Final Rules do not include the prohibition in the Proposed Rules on charging a private fund portfolio company for services not provided, such as, for example, accelerated monitoring fees.
  • The SEC did not adopt the Proposed Rule’s prohibition on an adviser seeking reimbursement, indemnification, exculpation, or limitation of liability by the private fund or its investors for the adviser’s breach of fiduciary duty, willful malfeasance, bad faith, negligence, or recklessness in providing services to the private fund.
  • As discussed below, the Final Rules include limited exceptions to the restricted activities rule and parts of the preferential treatment rule for private funds that have commenced operations as of the applicable compliance date.

The following is an overview of the requirements of the Final Rules on registered investment advisers, and, with respect to certain requirements, unregistered exempt private fund advisers.

Quarterly Statements

The Final Rules require a registered investment adviser to prepare a quarterly statement for any private fund that it advises that has at least two full fiscal quarters of operating results, and distribute the quarterly statement to the private fund’s investors within a specified time period after each fiscal quarter.[4]  The quarterly statement must include:

a. A fund table that discloses, at a minimum: (1) a detailed accounting of all compensation, fees, and other amounts allocated or paid to the investment adviser or any of its related persons[5] by the private fund during the reporting period, including, but not limited to, management, advisory, sub-advisory, or similar fees or payments, and performance-based compensation; (2) a detailed accounting of all fees and expenses allocated to or paid by the private fund during the reporting period, including, but not limited to, organizational, accounting, legal, administration, audit, tax, due diligence, and travel fees and expenses; and (3) the amount of any offsets or rebates carried forward during the reporting period to subsequent periods to reduce future payments or allocations to the adviser or its related persons;

b. A portfolio investment table for the private fund’s investments that discloses, at a minimum, a detailed accounting of all portfolio investment compensation allocated or paid to the investment adviser or any of its related persons by the covered portfolio investment during the reporting period, presented both before and after the application of any offsets, rebates, or waivers;

c. Prominent disclosure regarding the manner in which all expenses, payments, allocations, rebates, waivers, and offsets are calculated and cross references to the sections of the private fund’s organizational and offering documents that set forth the applicable calculation methodology; and

d. The private fund’s performance, which,

1. For a liquid fund,[6] includes annual net total returns for each fiscal year over the past 10 fiscal years or since inception, whichever time period is shorter; average annual net total returns over one-, five-, and 10-fiscal-year periods; and the cumulative net total return for the current fiscal year as of the end of the most recent fiscal quarter covered by the quarterly statement, or

2. For an illiquid fund, includes gross IRR and gross MOIC for the illiquid fund; net IRR and net MOIC for the illiquid fund; gross IRR and gross MOIC for the realized and unrealized portions of the illiquid fund’s portfolio, with the realized and unrealized performance shown separately, and a statement of contributions and distributions for the illiquid fund.[7]

Annual Private Fund Audits

The Final Rules require a registered investment adviser to cause each private fund that it advises (other than a securitized asset fund)[8] to undergo an annual financial statement audit that meets the requirements of the annual audit exception of the custody rule[9] under the Advisers Act, and cause the audited financial statements to be delivered to the private fund’s investors in accordance with the annual audit exception.[10]

Adviser-led Secondaries

The Final Rules require a registered investment adviser conducting an adviser-led secondary transaction[11] with respect to any private fund that it advises (other than a securitized asset fund) to, in each case, prior to the due date of the election form in respect of the adviser-led secondary transaction:

a. Obtain, and distribute to investors in the private fund, a fairness opinion or valuation opinion from an independent opinion provider; and

b. Prepare, and distribute to investors in the private fund, a written summary of any material business relationships the adviser or any of its related persons has, or has had within the two-year period immediately prior to the issuance of the fairness opinion or valuation opinion, with the independent opinion provider.[12]

Restricted Activities

Under the Final Rules,[13] an investment adviser to a private fund (other than a securitized asset fund), whether or not registered with the SEC, may not, directly or indirectly, do the following with respect to the private fund, or any investor in that private fund:

a. Charge or allocate to the private fund fees or expenses associated with an investigation of the adviser or its related persons by any governmental or regulatory authority, unless the investment adviser requests each investor of the private fund to consent to, and obtains written consent from at least a majority in interest of the private fund’s investors that are not related persons of the adviser for, such charge or allocation; provided, however, that the investment adviser may not charge or allocate to the private fund fees or expenses related to an investigation that results or has resulted in a court or governmental authority imposing a sanction for a violation of the Advisers Act or the rules promulgated thereunder;

b. Charge or allocate to the private fund any regulatory or compliance fees or expenses, or fees or expenses associated with an examination, of the adviser or its related persons, unless the investment adviser distributes a written notice of any such fees or expenses, and the dollar amount thereof, to the investors of such private fund client in writing within 45 days after the end of the fiscal quarter in which the charge occurs;

c. Reduce the amount of an adviser clawback[14] by actual, potential, or hypothetical taxes applicable to the adviser, its related persons, or their respective owners or interest holders, unless the investment adviser distributes a written notice to the investors of such private fund client that sets forth the aggregate dollar amounts of the adviser clawback before and after any reduction for actual, potential, or hypothetical taxes within 45 days after the end of the fiscal quarter in which the adviser clawback occurs;

d. Charge or allocate fees or expenses related to a portfolio investment (or potential portfolio investment) on a non-pro rata basis when multiple private funds and other clients advised by the adviser or its related persons (other than a securitized asset fund) have invested (or propose to invest) in the same portfolio investment, unless (i) the non-pro rata charge or allocation is fair and equitable under the circumstances and (ii) prior to charging or allocating such fees or expenses to a private fund client, the investment adviser distributes to each investor of the private fund a written notice of the non-pro rata charge or allocation and a description of how it is fair and equitable under the circumstances; and

e. Borrow money, securities, or other private fund assets, or receive a loan or an extension of credit, from a private fund client, unless the adviser: (i) distributes to each investor a written description of the material terms of, and requests each investor to consent to, such borrowing, loan, or extension of credit; and (ii) obtains written consent from at least a majority in interest of the private fund’s investors that are not related persons of the adviser.

The restrictions with respect to adviser investigation expenses and adviser borrowings in the restricted activities rule will not apply to contractual agreements governing a private fund (and contractual agreements governing a borrowing, loan, or extension of credit entered into by a private fund) that has commenced operations as of the applicable compliance date[15] of the restricted activities rule and that were entered into in writing prior to the compliance date if the restricted activities rule would require the parties to amend such governing agreements; provided that this exception does not permit an investment adviser to such a fund to charge or allocate to the private fund fees or expenses related to an investigation that results or has resulted in a court or governmental authority imposing a sanction for a violation of the Advisers Act or the rules promulgated thereunder.

Preferential Treatment

Under the Final Rules,[16] an investment adviser to a private fund (other than a securitized asset fund), whether or not registered with the SEC, may not, directly or indirectly, do the following with respect to a private fund, or any investor in that private fund:

a. Grant an investor in the private fund or in a similar pool of assets the ability to redeem its interest on terms that the adviser reasonably expects to have a material, negative effect on other investors in that private fund or in a similar pool of assets, except: (i) if such ability to redeem is required by the applicable laws, rules, regulations, or orders of any relevant foreign or U.S. Government, State, or political subdivision to which the investor, the private fund, or any similar pool of assets is subject; or (ii) if the investment adviser has offered the same redemption ability to all other existing investors, and will continue to offer such redemption ability to all future investors, in the private fund and any similar pool of assets; or

b. Provide information regarding the portfolio holdings or exposures of the private fund, or of a similar pool of assets, to any investor in the private fund if the adviser reasonably expects that providing the information would have a material, negative effect on other investors in that private fund or in a similar pool of assets, except if the investment adviser offers such information to all other existing investors in the private fund and any similar pool of assets at the same time or substantially the same time.

The preferential treatment rules above will not apply to contractual agreements governing a private fund that has commenced operations as of the compliance date[17] and that were entered into in writing prior to the compliance date if the above preferential treatment rules would require the parties to amend such governing agreements.

The Final Rules provide further that an investment adviser to a private fund (other than a securitized asset fund), whether or not registered with the SEC, may not, directly or indirectly, provide any preferential treatment to any investor in the private fund unless the adviser provides the following written notices:

a. Advance written notice for prospective investors in a private fund. The investment adviser must provide to each prospective investor in the private fund, prior to the investor’s investment in the private fund, a written notice that provides specific information regarding any preferential treatment related to any material economic terms that the adviser or its related persons provide to other investors in the same private fund.

b. Written notice for current investors in a private fund. The investment adviser must distribute to current investors:

1. For an illiquid fund, as soon as reasonably practicable following the end of the private fund’s fundraising period, written disclosure of all preferential treatment the adviser or its related persons has provided to other investors in the same private fund;

2. For a liquid fund, as soon as reasonably practicable following the investor’s investment in the private fund, written disclosure of all preferential treatment the adviser or its related persons has provided to other investors in the same private fund; and

3. On at least an annual basis, a written notice that provides specific information regarding any preferential treatment provided by the adviser or its related persons to other investors in the same private fund since the last written notice provided in accordance with the preferential treatment rule, if any.

Recordkeeping

The Final Rules amend the recordkeeping rule under the Advisers Act to require registered investment advisers to maintain books and records related to the quarterly statement, annual audit, adviser-led secondaries, and preferential treatment rules.[18]

Written Annual Compliance Reviews

The Final Rules amend the compliance rule under the Advisers Act to require registered investment advisers to document their annual compliance reviews in writing.[19]

Compliance Dates

The Final Rules provide for the following compliance dates:

Rule

Applicability

Compliance Date for Large Private Fund Advisers (advisers with $1.5 billion or more in private fund assets under management)

Compliance Date for Smaller Private Fund Advisers (advisers with less than $1.5 billion in private fund assets under management)

Quarterly Statements 211(h)(1)-2

 

Registered investment advisers

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

Annual Private Fund Audits 206(4)-10

Registered investment advisers

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

Adviser-led Secondaries 211(h)(2)-2

Registered investment advisers

September 14, 2024 (12 months after publication in the Federal Register)

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

Restricted Activities 211(h)(2)-1

All private fund advisers

September 14, 2024 (12 months after publication in the Federal Register)

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

Preferential Treatment  211(h)(2)-3

All private fund advisers

September 14, 2024 (12 months after publication in the Federal Register)

March 14, 2025 (18 months after publication in the Federal Register)

Written Annual Compliance Reviews 206(4)-7

Registered investment advisers

November 13, 2023 (60 days after publication in the Federal Register)

November 13, 2023 (60 days after publication in the Federal Register)

Dorsey Observations

The Final Rules impose significant new obligations on private fund advisers.  Private fund advisers will be well-advised to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Final Rules.  For example, private fund advisers should develop or modify its template private fund quarterly statement to satisfy the content and formatting requirements of the quarterly statement rule.  Private fund advisers will be required to make certain determinations under the Final Rules, such as whether a preferential redemption or portfolio information term provided to an investor through a side letter is reasonably expected to have a material, negative effect on other investors in the private fund.  Private fund advisers with a view towards launching new funds should carefully note the compliance dates for the restricted activities and preferential treatment rules, which vary depending on the amount of private fund assets managed by the adviser.  Private funds that are launched after the compliance dates must comply with the restricted activities and preferential treatment rules, and prepare and distribute the required preferential treatment notices to prospective and current investors.

Dorsey’s investment management group will continue to monitor for any further guidance from the SEC on the Final Rules.  Dorsey’s regulatory compliance services are available to assist private fund managers with compliance with the Final Rules, including the design and implementation of new or modified policies and procedures.



[1] Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, SEC Release No. IA-6383 (Aug. 23, 2023) (the “Release”) available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2023/ia-6383.pdf.

[2] Release, at page 1.

[3] See Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, SEC Release No. IA-5955 (Feb. 9, 2022) available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2022/ia-5955.pdf.

[4] Quarterly statements must be distributed to the private fund’s investors, if the private fund is not a fund of funds, within 45 days after the end of each of the first three fiscal quarters of each fiscal year of the private fund, and 90 days after the end of each fiscal year of the private fund, and, if the private fund is a fund of funds, within 75 days after the end of the first three fiscal quarters of each fiscal year, and 120 days after the end of each fiscal year.  Quarterly statements may be prepared and distributed by a person other than the adviser.  17 CFR § 275.211(h)(1)-2(a).

[5] Related person is defined as “(1) all officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions) of the adviser; (2) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the adviser; (3) all current employees (other than employees performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar functions) of the adviser; and (4) any person under common control with the adviser.”

[6] Liquid fund is defined as “private fund that is not an illiquid fund.”  Illiquid fund is defined as “a private fund that (1) is not required to redeem interests upon an investor’s request; and (2) has limited opportunities, if any, for investors to withdraw before termination of the fund.”

[7] Gross IRR is defined as “an internal rate of return that is calculated gross of all fees, expenses, and performance-based compensation borne by the private fund” and gross MOIC is defined as “a multiple of invested capital that is calculated gross of all fees, expenses, and performance-based compensation borne by the private fund.”  Net IRR is defined as “an internal rate of return that is calculated net of all fees, expenses, and performance-based compensation borne by the private fund” and net MOIC is defined as “a multiple of invested capital that is calculated net of all fees, expenses, and performance-based compensation borne by the private fund.”

[8] Securitized asset fund is defined as “any private fund whose primary purpose is to issue asset backed securities and whose investors are primarily debt holders.”

[9] 17 CFR § 275.206(4)-2(b)(4).

[10] The Final Rules require a registered investment adviser to take all reasonable steps to cause a private fund that the adviser does not control and is neither controlled by nor under common control with to undergo a financial statement audit and to cause audited financial statements to be delivered in accordance with the custody rule. 17 CFR § 275.206(4)-10.

[11] Adviser-led secondary transaction is defined as “any transaction initiated by the investment adviser or any of its related persons that offers private fund investors the choice between: (i) selling all or a portion of their interests in the private fund; and (ii) converting or exchanging all or a portion of their interests in the private fund for interests in another vehicle advised by the adviser or any of its related persons.”

[12] 17 CFR § 275.211(h)(2)-2.

[13] 17 CFR § 275.211(h)(2)-1.

[14] Adviser clawback is defined as “any obligation of the adviser, its related persons, or their respective owners or interest holders to restore or otherwise return performance-based compensation to the private fund pursuant to the private fund’s governing agreements.”

[15] See the compliance date for the restricted activities rule discussed below.

[16] 17 CFR § 275.211(h)(2)-3.

[17] See the compliance date for the preferential treatment rule discussed below.

[18] 17 CFR § 275.204-2.

[19] 17 CFR § 275.206(4)-7.

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.