.

Client Alert

U.S. Bars More Imports and Weighs Broader Measures on Cotton From Xinjiang, China

September 21, 2020

by Dave Townsend and T. Augustine Lo

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On September 14, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) expanded a ban on certain imports from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (“Xinjiang”) in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) while saying that it was still weighing a potentially much broader ban of the importation of all cotton and cotton products from Xinjiang.  CBP’s action follows other recent U.S. measures to target the alleged use of forced labor from Uyghur and other Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, including asset freezes against certain PRC government officials imposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the addition of certain Chinese companies to the Entity List by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) that will restrict the ability of U.S. companies to export items to such listed companies.

In light of these new CBP measures and the apparent threat of even broader prohibitions, U.S. companies should closely review their supply chains to determine if any of their goods sourced from the PRC (especially if they are apparel items or have textile content) originate from Xinjiang.  There will likely be growing financial, legal and reputational risks from the importation of such products made in Xinjiang or from cotton grown in Xinjiang, including the potential of further federal legislation to mandate more such import bans by CBP in the future.  Both U.S. companies sourcing from the PRC and producers and suppliers in the PRC should be prepared to act more proactively to cope with the escalating risks from these new CBP measures.


CBP’s Latest Import Bans.

CBP’s bans imposed on September 14 are through Withhold Release Orders (“WROs”) that apply to specific products from five named companies operating in or sourcing from Xinjiang with individual effective dates in August or September 2020:

  • All products made by workers supplied by the Lop County No. 4 Vocational Skills Education and Training Center;
  • Hair products made at the Lop County Hair Product Industrial Park;
  • Apparel from Yili Zhuowan Garment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Baoding LYSZD Trade and Business Co., Ltd.;
  • Cotton from Xinjiang Junngar Cotton and Linnen Co.; and
  • Computer parts from Hefei Bitland Information Technology Co., Ltd.

It should be noted CBP’s WRO entered against the training center in Lop County unusually covers every kind of product made by the workers supplied to Chinese companies by that training center, so it remains to be seen exactly how widely CBP will apply this particular WRO to block the entry of goods from the PRC.

CBP will rely on these latest WROs to prevent the release of any imports of the specified goods linked to these five entities, effectively banning their U.S. importation unless the importers can eventually persuade CBP the goods were not made with forced labor.  When CBP announced these five WROs, CBP also publicly stated that it is also still considering a WRO on all cotton goods from Xinjiang.  China is the world’s second largest producer of cotton, and Xinjiang is believed to produce over 80 percent of all the cotton raised in China.  Accordingly, if CBP were to adopt such a broader measure against all Xinjiang cotton or cotton products, such a move would likely cause considerable disruptions to most established global textile and apparel supply chains.


Claimed Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang.

The human rights situation in Xinjiang has come under intense scrutiny from both Congress and the Administration, from certain other national governments and the European Union, and from various non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) that charge the PRC government has compelled over one million Uyghur and other minority Muslims in Xinjiang to move into “reeducation” or “training” camps and then to work as forced labor in factories on behalf of Chinese companies that have cooperative programs with certain Chinese government ministries.  The PRC authorities have vehemently denied these allegations and responded that such centers are only seeking to reduce the danger of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in Xinjiang and to enhance economic opportunities for the Uyghur and other Muslim minority groups in the region by giving them better Chinese language literacy and more currently useful vocational skills.  However, PRC officials have also tended to limit western media access to Xinjiang, making it more difficult to verify the actual facts on the ground and thus adding to the widespread suspicions about the true state of affairs there.

In recent months, the Administration has imposed asset freezes, export bans, and import bans on named Chinese companies and a handful of PRC government officials claimed to be responsible for such sustained human rights violations in Xinjiang.  In addition, Congress is now actively considering legislation that would require CBP to impose even broader import prohibitions against a range of imports from Xinjiang.

On July 1, the U.S. Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security issued a rare joint business advisory summarizing their collective concerns about human rights and labor conditions in Xinjiang.  The Joint Advisory’s conclusion is rather stark in its warning to the U.S. business community:

Businesses with potential exposure in their supply chain to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang) or to facilities outside Xinjiang that use labor or goods from Xinjiang should be aware of the reputational, economic, and legal risks of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses, including but not limited to forced labor in the manufacture of goods intended for domestic and international distribution. In order to mitigate reputational, economic, legal, and other risks, businesses should apply industry human rights due diligence policies and procedures to address risks.

The Joint Advisory also provides some due diligence guidelines and suggestions for companies with complex supply chains so they can try to avoid such problems and risks when they choose to source items from China in general and from Xinjiang in particular.


Legal Background.

For some 90 years, Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has prohibited importers from entering into U.S. commerce any foreign-origin goods that were mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any by forced labor, convict labor, or child labor.  However, historically, the U.S. Government had only invoked Section 307 a few dozen times over those nine decades, mainly because the federal law had also allowed CBP to release from customs custody such goods made with forced labor if they fulfilled “consumptive demand” in the United States.

However, when Congress passed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act in 2016, it eliminated that “consumptive demand” alternative and thus enhanced CBP’s enforcement powers in regard to seizures of goods made with forced labor.  CBP usually applies the Section 307 prohibition at U.S. ports of entry through WROs that apply to specific products from certain companies.  However, CBP has also imposed broader import bans, such as on a regional basis with respect to entire classes of goods, if there is enough credible evidence that the alleged use of forced or other illicit labor is sufficiently widespread and endemic.

CBP will issue a WRO if it concludes there is reasonable (although not conclusive) information indicating that a company uses forced labor to produce or process goods that contravene Section 307.  In deciding whether to issue a WRO, CBP has said it will consider allegations from both the private sector and NGOs that specified imports were made from forced labor and so should become subject to the Section 307 import ban.  For example, an ad hoc group of NGOs, mostly human rights and labor organizations, is currently requesting that CBP block all cotton imports into the United States from Xinjiang because the group alleges the use of forced labor is so widespread and pervasive that it has tainted virtually all textile production from that region.

If CBP detains any imported goods under a WRO, the U.S. importer may then either return the detained shipment or can try to show CBP that the goods were not made with forced labor.  To obtain the release of a shipment subject to a WRO, an importer must submit, within three months after the importation, a certificate of origin and a detailed statement demonstrating that the goods were not produced by forced labor, (e.g., with a precise supply chain audit report from a credible independent auditing firm).  CBP will review such importer evidence on a case-by-case basis and, if CBP deems the importer’s evidence sufficient, CBP will release the goods into the U.S. market.  Conversely, if CBP finds the submitted evidence inadequate, the agency will exclude the goods, barring their importation, and proceed to seize and forfeit the goods (generally without any compensation to the importer).


Further Legislation Under Consideration.

Congress is currently considering two bills, H.R. 6210 and S. 3471, entitled the “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.”  This legislation’s main feature would be to shift the burden of proof under Section 307.  If Congress passes this legislation and the President then signs it into law, it would completely revamp the historical WRO process with respect to goods from Xinjiang.  Within 120 days of the law’s enactment, CBP would be required to treat all imported goods that are made in whole or in part within Xinjiang, and goods made by any entity working with government officials in Xinjiang under any “poverty alleviation” or “mutual pairing assistance” programs, as presumptively banned from admission into the United States.  Indeed, CBP would not even be allowed to admit such goods unless CBP finds “clear and convincing evidence” that those goods were not made with forced labor, and CBP would need to report such evidence to Congress.

In other words, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act would create a “rebuttable presumption” that any goods made within Xinjiang or by companies who are aligned with PRC government officials in Xinjiang in “poverty alleviation” or “mutual pairing assistance” programs were made with forced labor.  If the goods in question originate from the Xinjiang or from companies who take part in such government programs in Xinjiang, CBP would be allowed to treat those goods automatically as being the product of forced labor and thus excludable under Section 307.  If this legislation passes and is signed into law, such a presumption would likely create a much greater burden on U.S. importers.  CBP itself would have no real stake in releasing goods subject to such a statutory presumption, so it would fall to any affected importers to prove to CBP’s satisfaction that goods should be released, notwithstanding that presumption.  In effect, such a new system would automatically impose a regional WRO on all goods made in or originating from Xinjiang, requiring importers to furnish proof to CBP release their goods from customs custody, rather than waiting for CBP to make the first move under the current WRO system.

In addition, there is yet another bill, H.R. 6270, that has been introduced in the House of Representatives known as the “Uyghur Forced Labor Disclosure Act of 2020.”  If passed into law, this legislation would require all U.S. companies whose securities are publicly listed on any American stock exchange and who do business in Xinjiang to review and disclose specific data about their supply chains, including whether any of its goods are produced in or supplied from internment camps or factories using forced labor.  Furthermore, under H.R. 6270, if any such public company were to import goods made with forced labor, that company would also be required to disclose the nature and extent of the forced labor used to produce or supply those items, the company’s gross revenue and net profits attributable to those items, and if the company intends to continue their importation.  However, it is not clear how this proposed set of disclosure requirements would be squared with the underlying current law in Section 307 of the Tariff Act, which already forbids the importation into the United States of any such goods made with the use of forced labor.  Hypothetically, if a public company were to have this degree of prior knowledge and awareness about the use of forced labor in Xinjiang to make its products, it is difficult to see why such a company would choose to try to import those products into the United States, given the already-existing duty of CBP to issue WROs to block the entry of such goods under Section 307 and thus all of the foreseeable adverse legal, financial and reputational consequences for that company.

It thus appears that Congress, in one form or another, will be adding new laws in this area in response to its understanding of the human rights situation in Xinjiang, placing further stresses upon U.S. companies whose supply chains have come to rely upon Chinese sources of production in recent decades.  Such external pressures may either compel much more rigorous vigilance and preventative measures from U.S. companies that intend to remain reliant on PRC suppliers or the eventual movement of such supply chains to other producer nations in Asia, Latin America or Africa with similar cost and logistical characteristics in regard to textiles and apparel manufacturing.



Conclusion.

The most imminent risk for future WROs appears to be in textiles from Xinjiang, although CBP’s latest September 14 actions also imply that its future WROs could go beyond textiles and apparel to affect electronics, automotive parts or other kinds of merchandise commonly sourced from the PRC generally and from Xinjiang in particular.  Moreover, given the H.R. 6210 and S. 3471 legislation now under consideration, Congress could also force CBP to impose WROs on considerably more imports originating in Xinjiang or in other PRC provinces where Uyghur or other minority Muslim workers originally from Xinjiang may now be employed through the PRC’s reeducation and training programs.

Over the past three years, U.S. importers have had to contend with escalating trade tensions and the imposition of punitive Section 301 tariffs of up to 25 percent on many goods imported from the PRC.  Now, U.S. importing companies could also face the complete blockage of imports of certain goods on the basis they were produced, either in whole or in part, with the use of forced labor in the PRC, contrary to Section 307 of the Tariff Act.  On top of that, U.S. firms should also consider the separate potential reputational damage from accusations of doing business with PRC suppliers or producers that the U.S. Government has charged with using forced labor.  Such concerns have already begun to affect the purchasing patterns of major retail brands such as the well-known Swedish firm H&M, which has announced it has now stopped buying both finished goods and even cotton yarn originating in Xinjiang.

As a result, both U.S. and non-U.S. companies whose supply chains may involve producers or suppliers in the PRC, especially in Xinjiang, should be prepared to act more proactively.  Such steps would include additional due diligence and preventative audits by credible, competent and independent third party auditing agencies; adoption of meaningful human rights policies and guidelines; obtaining more direct written assurances and commitments from suppliers about their non-use of such illicit labor; focusing on clear contractual remedies if CBP were to enter a Section 307 WRO against goods shipped to the United States; and being generally prepared to respond to considerably more public, social media and U.S. Government attention to these concerns about the potential use of forced labor in Chinese supply chain situations.

Dorsey & Whitney attorneys are experienced in helping U.S. and international companies, including Chinese companies, to assess and mitigate the risks in their global supply chains, including under U.S. import and export law.

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

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

Dorsey Recognized in Chambers UK 2027

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

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.

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

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

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.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise