.

Client Alert

Potentially Expanded Private Right of Action Increases Risk of Class Action Exposure Under the California Consumer Privacy Act

May 1, 2019

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Looking Back - the California Consumer Privacy Act, and How We Got Here

As companies were getting up-to-speed on the effects of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) last year, California quickly enacted its own privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or “Act”) last June.  We address below the high risk associated with the CCPA and its interaction with regulations in key U.S. industries.

The fast-passed legislation was designed to avoid a November 2018 ballot initiative on the subject, and was plagued by errors and ambiguities that require robust clarification.  The Act’s take-away, however, was abundantly clear – California consumers have a right to know what personal data companies are collecting and are empowered to bring a private right of action for a data breach (and even potentially for other violations of the Act). 

As the broadest-sweeping privacy legislation the United States has seen in 20 years, the Act quickly spun off numerous state equivalents, including Hawaii (S.B. 418), Maryland (S.B. 613), Massachusetts (S.D. 341), New Mexico (S.B. 176), New York (S.B. 224), Rhode Island (S.B. 234), and Washington (S.B. 5376), among others.  Even with so many states on the privacy bandwagon, federal preemption is unlikely in the near future given disagreements around the mechanisms of enforcement, the types of data deserving protection, and conflicting incentives for companies versus consumers.

While the legislation itself is cumbersome, we broke it down in detail for you here.  At brass tacks, consumers now have a right to know which of their personal information has been collected and shared, can opt out of the sharing of that personal information, and can request deletion of same.  The threshold for compliance for companies is three-fold: 1) gross annual revenues over $25 million, 2) buy, receive, sell, or share the personal data of 50,000 of more consumers, households, or devices, or 3) receive at least 50% of annual revenue from selling consumers’ data.  Importantly, a covered company need meet only one of the three criteria. 

With such a broad breadth, the Act’s coverage spans companies across all industries.

Industry Spotlight - What’s the Impact to Your Company?

The stated goal of the CCPA is simple—to give California residents control over how their personal data is used, stored, and sold.  From a consumer perspective, this sounds desirable enough.  That is, until you look a bit under the cover at how compliance is going to be effectuated from an industry perspective.

Health Care Industry

For the health care industry, exemptions are key.  However, any health care company with employees in California, or that operates a website accessed by California residents, will likely be covered. In terms of types of information covered, industry insiders should keep a careful inventory of consumer personal information to help meet one of the Act’s carve-outs for protected health information collected by HIPAA-regulated “covered entities” and “business associates.”  A HIPAA-governed entity or Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”)-governed health care provider can obtain an exemption for patient information maintained in the same manner as medical information or protected health information.

Notably, the HIPAA and CMIA exemptions apply not to the covered entities themselves, but instead to the information collected by the entities.  To the extent covered entities and health care providers maintain information not governed by either HIPAA or the CMIA, they might still be required to comply with the Act’s provisions relating to the collection, use, and sharing of that data.  Thus, health care businesses must pay careful attention to the types of information they are collecting, how that information is defined across different statutes, and the extent to which similar data receives dissimilar protection under the idiosyncratic definitional structure of the CCPA.  For example, data that is “deidentified” under HIPAA, and therefore no longer considered protected personal health information, may not qualify for protection under the CCPA’s carve-out, creating potential compliance gaps and litigation risk.

Food and Agriculture Industry

Compliance is comparatively easier for the food and agriculture industry because of the types of data collected.  AgTech businesses, which are plentiful in California, typically do not collect an abundance of personally identifiable information.  However, if they have employees in California, operate a website used by California residents, or use precision agriculture tools to collect information about individual producers, such as names, addresses, or social security numbers, they will be required to comply with the CCPA. Thus, it will behoove AgTech businesses to begin their compliance work and keep careful records of the types of information they collect, since the CCPA applies to information collected both on and offline.

Financial Services Industry

The financial services industry, just as the healthcare industry, must carefully inventory information collected, since the CCPA does not apply to personal information that is “collected, processed, sold, or disclosed” pursuant to the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and the California Financial Information Privacy Act (“CFIPA”), but likely will apply to employee information, and certain information collected from website and app users from California. Notably, the above exemptions do not immunize financial institutions from the class action data breach provisions of the CCPA.  This is particularly important, given that the difference between compliance and non-compliance for financial institutions largely hinges on understanding the differences in protection that attend the treatment of similarly named, but dissimilarly defined types of data across the GLBA, CFIPA, and CCPA.  For instance, both the GLBA and the CFIPA, on the one hand, and the CCPA, on the other, cover consumer and personal information; however, nuanced differences in definitions between the statutes mean that information may fall between the cracks of the financial exemptions and CCPA protection. 

The consequences of such a compliance gap are more acute in the financial sector, given that class action litigation has been made available to address the “unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure,” of the nonencrypted or nonredacted personal information of consumers, that has been compromised as a result of the financial institution’s failure to maintain “reasonable security procedures.” Since the statutory language establishing the carve-outs for financial information does not apply to the private right of action provision, financial institutions, like all other businesses, are still on the hook for significant statutory damages in the event of a data breach.

Technology and Fintech Industry

Technology/fintech companies will need to tailor their business activities to avoid implicating restrictions on the sharing of data and reselling personal information.  Under the CCPA, consumers have the right to opt out of the sharing of their personal information, and third parties to whom a consumer’s information has been sold are prohibited from re-sharing that information until the consumer has been notified of the sharing and afforded the opportunity to opt out.  Given the expansive definition of “sell” under the CCPA, data-dependent companies stand to lose the very foundations of their businesses models.

Interestingly, the impact here is not exclusive to the business side.  While it is certainly true that data brokers, social media platforms, and mobile application developers will acutely feel the impact of restrictions on “selling,” and “re-selling,” personal information, to the extent that their operating revenues are dependent on exactly the type of data exchange and ad networks the CCPA seems to cover, consumers, who have become accustomed to a free Internet, might be similarly impacted.  If website operators can no longer fund their offerings via data exchanges and ad placement, they will be forced to solicit payment for services, potentially harming consumers who do not want to pay for content.

Thus, regardless of industry, the CCPA stands to leave a definitive footprint in how companies handle consumer data going forward and will heighten focus on consumer privacy.

What’s New and Where Are We Headed?

If the broad industry impact of the CCPA isn’t scary enough, the fact that the legislation itself keeps changing should spook even the most compliance-minded companies.  Due to its hasty drafting, the CCPA has already been formally amended once. The California State Legislature passed SB-1121 in August 2018, amending the original legislation to address questions of enforcement, exemptions, and preemption, among other changes. However, new amendments might still be forthcoming.

For example, California Assembly Bill 25 was introduced in December to amend the Act to exclude employees from the definition of consumer.  Of particular note in this space, the CCPA covers employee data, to potentially include performance reviews, internal correspondence, and other personal information germane to Californians in their roles as employees. Given the undesirable consequences of allowing the Act to cover employee data access requests (to include not only overwhelming request volume, but also misuse of the system to acquire information for use in employment lawsuits), the bill, if passed, hopes to divorce information collected pursuant to employment or application for employment from the personal information protected under the CCPA.  Any benefit to be gained by the exclusion of employee information, however, would be eclipsed by the potentially enormous impact of SB 561, if passed.  

The amendments proposed in SB 561, introduced in the California Legislature on February 22, 2019, by California Attorney General (“AG”) Xavier Becerra and California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, are significant for all industries covered by the CCPA. 

The proposed changes broaden the scope of the private right of action to encompass ALL violations of the CCPA, as opposed to only data breaches.  Importantly, the proposed amendments would also remove other business safeguards, such as the 30-day cure period during which businesses may attempt to rectify violations following notice thereof, and business’ entitlement to solicit opinions from the AG regarding compliance guidance (the general guidance would instead be published).

What’s the Takeaway - Why Should We Be Concerned?

As the law currently stands, the California AG cannot begin to bring enforcement actions for violations of the CCPA until July 1, 2020.  However, the private right of action becomes available on January 1, 2020.  As we have noted, the difference between compliance and liability for many industries is the CCPA’s ambiguous and often counterintuitive definition of key terms - i.e., “consumer,” “personal information,” “sell,” even “business,” to the extent that non-profits (important in the health-care context) are roped into the CCPA’s coverage if they are controlled by a for-profit entity.

An expanded private right of action would allow consumers to bring actions for violations big and small, technical and substantive, and questionably defensible, insofar as consumers may not be required to show any concrete, particularized harm in the event of a violation.

If you’ve been following Dorsey’s coverage on the CCPA, then you know that this means $$$, especially for hungry class action attorneys, as the potential for damages is high.  The CCPA, as amended, permits a penalty assessed by the AG of up to $2,500 for each unintentional violation, and up to $7,500 for each intentional violation; for private plaintiffs in the data breach context, statutory damages range between $100-$750 per individual, per incident.  This means that even a relatively small data breach involving 15,000 people equates to at least $1.5 million in damages.  Now imagine 25,000 people.  Well, you do the math.  The litigation costs alone are potentially catastrophic.

How Much Will It Cost You - Damages and Class Risk Are Key

The risks and costs of the class actions or litigation are not the only financial impacts, however.  Inevitably, cyber insurance premiums will increase, investigation costs and data gathering for compliance purposes will rise, and conflicting interpretations of various provisions will be promulgated, further complicating an already oblique compliance landscape.  Even attempts to outmaneuver class action liability are likely to have unintended, injurious consequences.  The CCPA contains a prohibition against class action waivers; however, there is a strong argument to be made that the Federal Arbitration Act will preempt this provision.  Yet, as we saw in the recent Uber arbitration case, attempts to limit class action liability by instituting mandatory arbitration provisions can backfire, where, as with Uber, mass arbitrations stick businesses with millions of dollars in filing fees alone.

Creative plaintiff’s lawyers will also tack on potential liability under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) if they are able to convince courts that the UCL can be used as a vehicle to pursue additional damages, or even non-data breach-related violations of the Act.  The UCL prohibits businesses from perpetrating “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business practices, authorizing private rights of action where there is an auxiliary violation of other laws. Thus, plaintiff’s lawyers are likely to use the CCPA as a vehicle for sourcing unlawful or unfair consumer privacy practices, in order to weaponize them under the UCL, independently of a CCPA cause of action. More concerning still, the CCPA creates a private right of action for data breaches, which incentivizes plaintiff’s lawyers to pile on a secondary UCL claim in the data breach context. In the event the private right of action is expanded to cover all violations of the CCPA, the risk profile increases tremendously.

How Dorsey Can Help

With a January 1, 2020 implementation deadline forthcoming, compliance-minded in-house attorneys should have begun compliance efforts now.  Dorsey’s Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Social Media Team has developed assessment tools and guidance on reasonable security practices and procedures to help prevent data breaches and defend companies from the forthcoming tsunami of class actions.  Learn more about the how the CCPA impacts your business by contacting us.  Notably, Dorsey has partnered with leading technical security industry organizations to offer full-service advice.

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

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

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

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

Insights

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

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.