.
Marquee

Trusts & Estates

Achieving business, financial and family goals.

Our Trusts and Estates team can help you plan for and administer the efficient transfer of assets to spouses, children, charities, and others. Understanding your objectives is our first priority.

We work with clients to help them achieve their goals with respect to wills and trusts, charitable giving, family-owned business succession planning, international estate planning, education funding, and estate and trust administration. We assist both individuals and fiduciaries — including professionals, corporate executives, trust companies, business owners and multigenerational families with significant wealth — to achieve their business, financial and family objectives efficiently and at the lowest possible tax cost.

Our Trusts and Estates team is comprised of lawyers and accountants, a number of whom are CPAs or have LL.M.s in taxation, with a broad range of practical experience in estate planning and administration.

Accolades

Top Honor
229 Lawyers Recognized Representing 50+ Practices
Best Lawyers 2027
Tier 1
Trusts and Estates Law Firm in Minneapolis
Best Law Firms 2026
Nationally Ranked
43 Practices and 91 Lawyers Ranked
Chambers USA 2026

Insights

Client Alert

FinCEN Proposes AML Compliance Obligations for Non-Financed Real Estate Transactions

March 15, 2024

Following consideration of comments received from an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,[1] on February 16, 2024, FinCEN issued a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”)[2] that for the first time would require non-financed residential real estate transfers involving transfers to entities, including trusts, to be reported to FinCEN in a format similar to initial reports required to be filed pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act and implementing FinCEN regulations (the “BOI Regulations”).[3] Unlike the reporting requirements of the BOI Regulations—which generally apply to financial institutions that are familiar with compliance obligations under applicable anti-money laundering (“AML”) reporting requirements, when adopted, the Proposed Rule would include within the scope of coverage reporting persons and entities that heretofore were exempt from AML compliance and reporting obligations (i.e., and accordingly very unfamiliar with AML compliance obligations), including persons and entities that provide residential real estate settlement services for specified residential transfers that do not involve a financing component. This Alert summarizes significant provisions of the Proposed Rule. Based upon historical experience, it is likely that few modifications will be adopted by FinCEN when the Proposed Rule is finalized. Accordingly, settlement service providers in the residential real estate market might consider familiarizing themselves with the compliance requirements of the Proposed Rule which, as described below, includes the ability to contractually delegate to another reporting person or entity required reporting and record keeping obligations. Overview of the Proposed Rule Despite significant evidence that non-financed real estate transfers provided a significant means to engage in money laundering, except for limited “geographic targeting orders” (“GTOs”),[4] for many years, FinCEN has exempted that category of transactions from comprehensive regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act and applicable FinCEN Regulations.[5] The Proposed Rule would require that certain persons involved in residential real estate closings and settlements file a so-called streamlined version of a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”), referred to in the Proposed Rule as a “Real Estate Report” and to maintain compliance records for a five-year period. The persons subject to these reporting and recordkeeping requirements are defined in the Proposed Rule as “reporting persons,” and the obligation to file a report would be determined through a “cascading” or descending order of priority approach based on the function performed by the person in the subject real estate closing and settlement process. Although FinCEN has stated that a Real Estate Report is a streamlined version of a SAR, as discussed below, the proposed information that must be included in a Real Estate Report is anything except streamlined, and includes detailed information about: (a) the transaction; (b) the transferor; (c) the transferee; (d) the reporting person or entity; (e) the consideration paid; and (f) beneficial ownership information of the parties to the transaction. Importantly, because only one filing relating to a covered transaction would be required for a Real Estate Report, as compared to the filing of a traditional SAR, which is an ongoing obligation when a money laundering or other illegal activity is identified, covered persons subject to the reporting requirement under the Proposed Rule would not need to maintain the more detailed AML compliance programs otherwise required of financial institutions under the BSA.[6] What follows is a summary of significant provisions of the Proposed Rule, including: (a) real estate transactions covered by the Proposed Rule; (b) transferees holding ownership interests covered by the Proposed Rule; (c) reporting persons; (d) exemptions; (e) information required to be included in a Real Estate Report; (f) record keeping requirements; and (g) the effective date of the Proposed Rule. Each will be addressed separately below. Covered Real Estate Transactions The Proposed Rule would impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to certain transfers of residential real property made to a transferee entity or a transferee trust (defined in the Proposed Rule as “reportable transfers”). Unlike the targeted approach employed for FinCEN’s GTOs, the Proposed Rule is intentionally meant to broadly capture residential real property throughout the United States, including any State, the District of Columbia, the Indian lands (as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and any territory or possession of the United States.[7] The term “residential real estate” includes single family houses, townhouses, condominiums, and cooperatives, as well as apartment buildings designed for one to four families.[8] As explained in the analysis accompanying the Proposed Rule, the test to determine whether real property constitutes reportable residential real property can be met in one of three ways: (a) the real property includes a structure designed principally for occupancy by one to four families; (b) the real property is vacant or unimproved, and is zoned, or for which a permit has been issued, for occupancy by one to four families; or (c) the real property ownership is evidenced by a share in a cooperative housing corporation. Transferees and Ownership Interests Covered by the Proposed Rule The keys to understand the Proposed Rule is to understand the definitions of transferee entities and transferee trusts, as well as when an entity and trust holds an “ownership interest” in residential real property being transferred. A “transferee entity” is any person other than a transferee trust or an individual. For example, a transferee entity may be a corporation, partnership, estate, association, or limited liability company. By reference to the BOI Regulations, a transferee entity is as broad as any “Foreign Reporting Company” (as defined in the BOI Regulations)[9] except for natural persons and trust entities. A “transferee trust” is defined as any legal arrangement created when a person (i.e., a settlor or grantor) places assets under the control of a trustee for the benefit of one or more persons or entities (i.e., a beneficiary) or for a specified purpose, as well as any legal arrangement similar in structure or function.[10] Unlike the BOI Regulations in which only statutory trusts are covered for reporting purposes, a transferee trust is any trust entity formed under statutory or common law, and includes trust structures organized within the domestic United States or in a foreign jurisdiction.[11] Finally, a Real Property Report must be filed if an “ownership interest” is acquired in residential real property by a transferee entity or a transferee trust. An ownership interest in covered residential real property constitutes rights to the real property that is evidenced through a deed or, for an interest in a cooperative housing corporation, through stock, shares, membership, a certificate, or other contractual agreement evidencing ownership. Covered Reporting Persons Because most bank and non-bank lenders may not be involved in a covered non-financed real property transfer,[12] the Proposed Rule creates a descending priority of settlement service participants that would be responsible for filing a Real Property Report. In descending order of priority, those persons and entities are: Real estate professionals providing certain settlement services in the settlement process—and specifically the person listed as the closing or settlement agent for a settlement; If no person or entity prepares a closing or settlement statement, the person that files the deed or other instrument that transfers ownership of the residential real property; The person that underwrites an owner’s title insurance policy for the transferee—most typically this will be a title insurance company or a person or entity that issues a similar form of title insurance or guaranty; The person that disburses the greatest amount of funds in connection with the reportable transfer, which in many cases would be an escrow company or an attorney holding funds in a client trust account; The person that prepares an evaluation of the title status; and The person who prepares the deed, which in many jurisdictions would be prepared either by an attorney or a title company. It should be noted that the cascade of persons and entities constitutes a somewhat mishmash of functionality that may differ significantly from state to state. For example, in many state jurisdictions attorneys play a significant role in real estate closings, whereas in other states attorneys are rarely involved. Importantly, the Proposed Rule allows reporting persons to contract among settlement providers the obligation to file a Real Estate Report. This would permit, for example, a title insurance company to prepare and file a Real Estate Report even though the title insurance company would have a lower priority in the cascade than another person or entity. Exemptions In a manner similar to the exemptions provided for in the BOI Regulations, the Proposed Rule provides numerous exemptions for entities whose ownership and control information is widely available. The exemptions include: Securities reporting issuers; Governmental authorities; Banks; Credit unions; Depository institution holding companies; Money service businesses; Securities brokers or dealers; Securities exchanges or clearing agencies; Other Exchange Act registered entities; Insurance companies; State-licensed insurance producers; Commodity Exchange Act registered entities; Public utilities; Financial market utilities; SEC-registered investment companies; and Subsidiaries of an exempted entity whose ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by an exempted entity. It is important to note that, while the list of exempted entities substantially mirrors the exempted entities set forth in the BOI Regulations,[13] a notable omission is that “large operating companies”[14] that are exempt under the BOI Regulations are not exempted from coverage under the Proposed Rule. This is based upon FinCEN’s view that large companies (which are not, for example, SEC- registered companies) may be the source of potential money laundering by transferring covered real property under their control. Information to be Included in a Real Estate Report Although the majority of the analysis accompanying the Proposed Rule focuses on gathering and reporting information regarding a transferee entity or transferee trust, the information required to be included in a Real Estate Report for a reportable transfer is much broader and significantly more detailed, and includes, among other things, information regarding: (a) the real property, including any compensation paid by the parties; (b) the reporting person; (c) the transferor; (d) the transferee entity or transferee trust; (e) the individual signing a transfer document; and (f) the beneficial ownership of the transferee. For purposes of brevity, the following is a summary of several information items that must be included in a Real Estate Report; depending upon the status and category of the individual or entity: The full legal name of the individual or entity; The status of the person or entity (e.g., reporting person, transferor, transferee, etc.); Information regarding the transfer and transaction, including property location, and certain economic terms of the transaction; The street address of the reporting person’s residence or principal place of business in the United States; Beneficial ownership information generally determined pursuant to the BOI Regulations;[15] A unique identification number, such as a TIN or acceptable domestic or foreign substitute; In the case of a trust, information regarding trust organization and status; and In the case of a party signing a transfer document, the capacity of the individual or entity executing the transfer. As contemplated by the Proposed Rule, in order to prepare a Real Estate Report, a reporting person will be required to address each of the reporting information categories identified above (e.g., the transferor and the transferee) and obtain required data from each of the persons or entities. For example, a non-exempt company may be a transferor, with the transferee being another corporation. The transferee corporation, in turn, would be required to identify its beneficial owners for inclusion in the Real Estate Report. Similarly, in the case of a transferee trust, the trust document must be analyzed to identify who, besides the trustee, is a beneficial owner of the trust. In short, depending upon the facts underlying the reportable transfer, the data gathering may be complicated. Further, unlike the BOI Regulations that require beneficial owners of a reporting company to cooperate with the reporting company and to provide required information, the Proposed Rule is silent on this issue, which might permit a beneficial owner the flexibility to refuse to cooperate with a reporting person under the Proposed Rule. For reporting persons not accustomed to gathering sensitive and potentially complicated information, the Proposed Rule provides some useful guidance. Specifically, the Proposed Rule will allow a reporting person to collect information from a transferee or a person representing the transferee, provided the transferee or their representative certifies in writing, to the best of their knowledge, the accuracy of the information. In addition, as noted above, persons falling within the cascade list of reportable persons will be able to contract with other persons or entities falling within the cascade in order to transfer to another person or entity that regulatory obligation. Recordkeeping A reporting person will be required to maintain a copy of a filed Real Estate Report, a certification obtained from a transferee, and a designation (i.e. delegation) agreement for five years. Effective Date When finalized, the Proposed Rule would become effective one year following publication in the Federal Register. Initial Observations We offer the following initial observations. First, as described above, the disclosure scheme contemplated by the Proposed Rule is potentially complicated and detailed in the information that it will require. Many of the settlement service providers that are in the cascade of reporting persons have historically fallen outside of AML compliance requirements, and the preparation of a Real Restate Report, including training of personnel, will likely fall to that of outside vendors. Second, the description of the real estate settlement process contained in the Proposed Rule is perhaps more reflective of a summary of the real estate settlement industry created by a layperson than reflective of the actual process of real estate closings on a state-by-state basis. Reporting persons will be required to extrapolate terminology used in the Proposed Rule to actual local nomenclature and practice. For example, in many states the central role played by attorneys in a real estate settlement may result in lawyers holding the highest priority in the cascade of reporting persons under the Proposed Rule. [1] 86 Fed. Reg. 69589 (Dec. 8, 2021). [2] 2024-02565.pdf (govinfo.gov). [3] 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380 et seq. [4] GTO Order Phase 17 (fincen.gov). [5] 67 Fed Reg. 21111 (Apr. 29, 2002). [6] The BSA requires each covered financial institution to establish an AML/CFT program, which must include, at a minimum: (a) the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; (b) the designation of a compliance officer; (c) an ongoing employee training program; and (d) an independent audit function to test programs. In addition, for covered financial institutions required to have an AML/CFT program, that category of financial institution is required to file SARs when suspicious activity is identified. See, 31 U.S.C 5312(a)(2); 31 C.F.R. § 1010.200 et seq. [7] 31 CFR §1010.100(hhh). [8] Real property would be covered in the case of a mixed-use development, such as a building with ground floor commercial space, and apartments or condominium units on higher floors.  [9] 31 C.F.R. § 380(c)(1)(ii).  [10] The impact of this broad definition is that typical family estate planning through the use of a family trust would require the filing of a Real Estate Report. [11] According to the Proposed Rule, the titling of a transfer is not material, meaning that a transfer to a trust is covered whether the subject real property is titled in the name of a trust itself or in the name of the trustee in the capacity as the trustee of the trust. [12] While bank and non-bank lenders would not be providing financing, those entities might be reporting persons if settlement services were provided (other than financing), such as escrow services provided directly or through an affiliated company. [13] 31 C.F.R. § 380(c)(2). [14] 31 C.F.R. § 380(c)(2)(xxi). [15] 31 C.F.R. § 380(d). 

Client Alert

UK IR35 – Important Changes From 6 April

March 29, 2021

Following a pandemic-related delay, significant changes to the IR35 regime come into force on 6 April 2021. From then, affected businesses which engage contractors who provide services through their own limited company intermediary (often, a personal service company) will be responsible for determining if the individual contractor is employed or self-employed for tax purposes and, if the contractor is employed, will be obliged to account for income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) through PAYE. Who is impacted? The new rules apply to “medium” and “large” entities which have a UK connection, and are applied on a group basis (which includes both UK and non-UK group companies). An entity is “small”, and is not subject to the new IR35 rules, if two or more of the following apply: annual turnover of no more than £10.2m balance sheet total of no more than £5.1m not more than 50 employees What is changing? From 6 April, the end-user has responsibility for determining whether a contractor is employed or self-employed for tax purposes, rather than (as currently) the intermediary. If the contractor falls within the new IR35 rules, the end-user client is responsible for accounting for income tax and NICs on the fees it pays. What is the impact? Where an end-user is subject to the new regime, there are some significant results including: they must make a “status determination” to ascertain the contractor’s status they must provide a “status determination statement” and deal with appeals where the contractor is deemed to be an employee for tax purposes, the end-user must account for income tax and NICs HMRC can impose penalties for non-compliance Act quickly Whilst HMRC has indicated that it will be lenient in enforcement in the first year, it is important to ensure that contractor arrangements are compliant, if this has not already been done.  

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.