I recently attended the American Bar Association’s “Sustainability and ESG” webinar, which focused on the status and future of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules related to climate disclosures.

I greatly appreciated hearing from the panel of attorneys about how they are currently advising clients considering the pause on SEC rules requiring such disclosures for certain private companies. Global companies already look beyond current U.S. requirements, and state climate disclosure requirements remain in effect. Peer benchmarking and investor expectations on climate risk and impact are staying strong, meaning building internal, organizational infrastructure to collect and analyze climate data is still advised to meet the eventual compliance obligations that are expected in the U.S.

Developing systems and processes for data collection and analysis, and planning for long-term climate risk continue to be important for U.S. companies to consider. BC’s Climate Change and Resilience team can support clients in these efforts to stay prepared for the future.

Questions? Reach out to Liz Wilson

Read on for the latest updates to environmental regulatory compliance and permitting.

CEQ issues Permitting Technology Action Plan

The Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Permitting Technology Action Plan, issued May 30, outlines a set of minimum functional requirements aimed at improving how agencies coordinate, review, and manage permitting processes. The plan calls for standardized data formats, automated project screening tools, and greater transparency through published decision criteria, while also emphasizing integrated geospatial analysis, improved document and record management, and automation of public comment analysis. Agencies are expected to adopt interoperable systems that can be used across multiple departments, with implementation milestones set for later this year.

Why it matters
While the plan is focused on federal operations, it reflects a broader shift toward digital transformation in environmental compliance.

Questions? Reach out to Kyle Hay

EPA announces drinking water PFAS MCLs revision

On May 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its intent to revise the PFAS drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Proposed changes include:

1. Rescinded MCLs: The EPA will rescind the individual MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX), as well as the Hazard Index MCL for these compounds plus PFBS.
2. Remaining MCLs: The MCLs for PFOS and PFOA will remain at 4.0 parts per trillion, with the compliance deadline extended to 2031.
3. New program: The EPA has introduced a new outreach program called PFAS OUT, which will provide resources, tools, funding, and technical assistance for water utilities.
4. Effluent guidelines: The EPA reaffirmed its commitment to establishing PFAS effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for industries to help protect source waters.

Questions? Reach out to Andy Safulko

Why it matters

While this announcement is significant, it is important to note that no immediate changes are being implemented. The agency is expected to release a draft of the revised rule in fall 2025. Continue to watch state-level actions as well as consider reassessing and adjusting PFAS compliance and project timelines.

Questions? Reach out to Kyle Hay or Andy Safulko.

Watching EPA SRF updates

A memo from EPA leadership emphasized a return to core statutory and regulatory requirements to implement the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, and streamlining fund management. The memo cites recent executive orders that override previous guidance on climate and environmental justice (EJ) considerations, though the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires that approximately half of the state revolving fund must go to disadvantaged communities. For FY 2026, the president’s budget proposal calls for up to 90% reduction in funding for Drinking Water and Clean Water SRFs, with some cuts affecting BIL supplemental funding, and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA).

Questions? Reach out to Seema Chavan

Why it matters: The EPA’s memo reorients funding toward conventional infrastructure projects, potentially sidelining climate-driven, innovative, or equity-driven proposals that had gained traction under the BIL priorities. Most state SRF programs are maintaining EJ requirements, with some states taking proactive measures to prioritize support for underserved communities with base SRF funds. However, with fewer SRF dollars, there may likely be a shift in the competitive landscape for non-disadvantaged communities — with increased competition for the remaining funds, lower ranking in priority scoring, and fewer grant dollars as principal forgiveness — requiring utilities to seek alternative funding sources.