Horizon – News and Trends in Sustainability Law

Deadline Alert

Regulations for California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act are now in effect – June 1 is registration deadline for producers. On May 1, California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the permanent regulations for California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging (also known as SB 54 or the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act) and filed the regulations with the Secretary of State. As the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) notes, the regulations became effective upon filing. To support the registration, reporting, and compliance monitoring processes under SB 54, CalRecycle has launched the Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility System (PEPRS), an online portal, as well as a new Producer Guidance web page. Because 30 days from May 1 falls on a Sunday, CalRecycle has extended the compliance deadline to the next business day, meaning these requirements must be met no later than June 1, 2026. CalRecycle is also reminding producers that, with the regulations now in effect, producers have until June 1 to do one of the following:

• If complying individually, register with CalRecycle and apply to be an Independent Producer.
• If participating in the approved producer responsibility organization (PRO), register with Circular Action Alliance (CAA) and submit supply data to CAA.
• If seeking to obtain an exemption as a small producer, register with CalRecycle and apply for the exemption.

Multi-state packaging EPR reporting deadlines converge on May 31. Including California, six of the seven US states with enacted extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging (as well as food service ware and paper products in some jurisdictions) share a May 31 statutory reporting deadline. Because that date falls on a Sunday this year, the deadlines will be extended to the following day, Monday, June 1. Of note: the scope of obligations varies by jurisdiction. Producers will report their EPR data to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which has been designated as the producer responsibility organization (PRO) by all packaging EPR states thus far. Producers in California, Colorado, and Oregon must file comprehensive annual supply reports covering 2025 packaging data at the individual product and component level, while Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington producers face a narrower obligation – a simplified supply report using broader, aggregated material-weight categories.

Other packaging EPR deadlines are just over the horizon as well. In California, CAA’s annual source reduction report is also due on May 31, with other PRO and producer-level reports due later this year. Producers operating in Washington are required to join CAA by July 1, and any producer not registered with CAA or operating under an approved individual plan will be barred from introducing covered materials into the state after March 1, 2029.

Meanwhile, on April 9, Oregon moved into active enforcement when the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) released the state’s inaugural Producer Status List, flagging roughly 300 producers for failing to register with CAA or having other outstanding deficiencies – a potential prelude to statutory penalties of as much as USD25,000 per day per violation. To support producers, CAA recently released an extensive resource suite of more than 20 updated compliance documents, spanning state-specific reporting workbooks, covered-material definitions, and eco-modulation bonus guidance, much of which is accessible only through CAA’s producer portal. Companies may consider using the remaining days before the May 31 deadline to verify registration status across all applicable states, close any gaps in 2025 supply data, and align reporting submissions with each jurisdiction’s distinct covered-material categories.

Please join us for a CLE webinar – Extended producer responsibility in focus: Navigating California SB 707 and textile end of life obligations. California’s SB 707 introduces EPR requirements that can affect sourcing strategies, supply chain relationships, compliance planning, and brand risk. Decisions made upstream may have significant downstream consequences for market access, cost structure, and enforcement exposure. Please join us on May 14 at 1 PM ET for a CLE webinar discussing key considerations under SB 707, compliance frameworks, risk areas, and practical approaches to managing textile EPR obligations across the product lifecycle. Register here.

Disclosures and voluntary reporting

Switzerland’s proposed sustainability reporting law aligns with the EU’s Omnibus I – consultation now open. The Swiss Federal Council has opened a consultation on the proposed Federal Act on Sustainable Corporate Governance. Crafted explicitly to align with the EU’s recently reformed Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the proposed Swiss law preserves many of the core requirements of earlier versions of the text, while reducing the scope of companies required to report in line with Omnibus I. Switzerland already has certain human rights and environmental reporting rules in place, but they focus on specific, circumscribed areas. The Swiss Ordinance on Due Diligence and Transparency, for instance, requires companies to report on their activities involving conflict minerals and child labor. The Federal Act on Sustainable Corporate Governance (NUFG/SCGA), in contrast, applies to companies based on their size. Its environmental and human rights due diligence obligations would apply only to companies with more than 5,000 employees and CHF1.5 billion in global revenue, and its sustainability reporting would apply to a somewhat broader group, including companies with more than 1,000 employees and annual revenues above CHF450 million. Small- and medium-sized companies are explicitly excluded from direct reporting mandates. Reporting requirements must align with the standards used for reporting to the EU, or recognized equivalents, and must align with the goal of net zero by 2050.

Many reports on the proposed law are noting its strong enforcement component. The law would establish a national supervisory authority empowered to review disclosures, conduct inspections, and impose sanctions. Penalties for failure to comply could reach as high as 3 percent of annual global revenue, thus shifting failure to comply from a reputational issue to a financial risk. The consultation on the NUFG/SCGA is open through July 9. See the Swiss government’s press release on the Act, which is in French, here. Switzerland is the fourth-largest European headquarters location for multinational companies.

United Arab Emirates: GHG emissions reporting deadline may be extended. For large entities operating in the UAE, May 30 is the current deadline for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting under the National Pathways to Climate Neutrality framework– but this date will reportedly be extended by the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment to address gaps in guidance on key requirements. Federal Decree-Law No. (11) of 2024 On the Reduction of Climate Change Effects, one of the two keystones of the UAE climate framework, went into effect in May 2025. The law sets annual GHG reduction targets for various sectors, requiring in-scope entities operating in the UAE to adjust their operations to help the country meet the emission-reduction targets set out in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to achieve climate neutrality. Entities emitting 500,000 metric tonnes or more of GHGs annually must track and report emissions, with sector-specific reduction targets set to align local actions with NDCs. The Decree’s reach is broad, affecting all emission sources in the UAE, including those in free zones. At this writing, the sole emirate to have set out annual reporting requirements under the Decree is Abu Dhabi.

ISO updates bellwether environmental management standard. To provide organizations with a clearer, more effective method to quantify their environmental goals, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has released ISO 14001:2026, Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use, a new edition of its bellwether environmental management standard. ISO 14001, the ISO states, is already in use by more than 670,000 organizations worldwide, providing “a structured way to manage environmental responsibilities, improve performance and ensure long-term resilience.” The 2026 update refines the original to offer greater ease of use while aligning more closely with globally emerging environmental priorities – for instance, linking environmental management systems directly to emissions reductions and operational efficiency, thereby strengthening support for measurable outcomes. See ISO 14004-2026 here.

ISSB declines to adopt mandatory nature-related disclosures. At its April board meeting in Beijing, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) agreed that requirements for nature-related disclosures will be provided in the form of an IFRS Practice Statement that would complement IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and S2 (Climate-related Disclosures). Nature-related disclosures include topics such as biodiversity, pollution, water, land use, and resource extraction. While the ISSB declined to make nature-related disclosures mandatory for all companies, current ISSB standards require the disclosure of material information about sustainability-related risks and opportunities, including nature-related risks and opportunities.

The ISSB aims to publish an exposure draft of the nature-related IFRS Practice Statement for public comment in October. The Practice Statement will draw on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework, European Sustainability Reporting Standards, and the Global Reporting Initiative Standards. In addition, the ISSB agreed to guide location-specific information and engagement with Indigenous peoples, local communities, and affected stakeholders.

UN SSE Initiative releases a framework for boards on overseeing sustainability disclosures. On March 31, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative (SSE Initiative) released Model Guidance for Board-Level Oversight of ISSB-aligned Reporting, a publication created to provide board directors with a clear, practical four-step framework on overseeing sustainability-related financial disclosures that align with the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. The model guidance, the SSE Initiative states, addresses how to integrate sustainability into strategic decision-making, set parameters for risk management, build strong governance structures, and assess the credibility and quality of disclosures. Download the model guidance here.

Also on March 31, the SSE Initiative rolled out a database summarizing the 30 most frequently asked questions arising from its capacity-building program on IFRS standards S1 and S2 for market participants in developing nations. The FAQ database draws on analyses of more than 2,500 practical questions that arose during training sessions, covering such topics as data quality, interoperability, and reporting boundaries. Since the first training program began, with sessions for member stock exchange staff, the SSE Initiative has trained more than 24,000 market participants. See the FAQs database here.

SBTi Trend Tracker: How companies are adopting climate targets. The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has released SBTi Trend Tracker 2025, summarizing how companies worldwide are adopting science-based climate targets and commitments across regions and sectors. Among SBTi’s findings:

• The number of companies worldwide that have set validated science-based targets grew 40 percent, from 6,954 in 2024 to 9,764 in 2025.
• Healthcare, materials, and information technology were the fastest-growing adopters of science-based climate targets. The Industrials sector included the most companies with validated science-based targets.
• Regionally, SBTi stated, “the frontier of climate action [is] increasingly shifting toward Asia and emerging markets.” Overall, however, Europe led as the region with the highest number of companies with validated science-based climate targets.

See the SBTi Trend Tracker 2025 here.

Extended producer responsibility

Recycling Modernization Act: CAA and Oregon DEQ publish list of allegedly non-compliant companies. As we recently reported, in March, the US District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon DEQ from enforcing the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the plaintiff in that suit, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), and its members. On April 6, the same court denied motions to intervene and clarified that the scope of that injunction protects only those entities that were members of NAW as of February 6, 2024. On April 10, the DEQ published a list of more than 300 companies outside the NAW injunction that it has flagged “for not having registered, reported, and/or paid fees under the Recycling Modernization Act.” The list was published on the CAA’s website, the PRO that manages the Oregon RMA program. Before the list was issued, CAA had contacted each company, giving them 90 days to respond. Those that did not respond were sent a Warning Letter with Opportunity to Correct with a 30-day correction timeline. The list sets out those companies that have not yet acted after that second opportunity.

As it prepares for statewide EPR, Minnesota extends deadline for responding to surveys on recycling infrastructure. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) extended to the end of April the deadline for facilities, recyclers, haulers, and municipalities to provide data on the state’s existing recycling infrastructure via online needs assessment surveys. Among other things, HF 3911, Minnesota’s Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, tasks MPCA with mapping and identifying gaps in the state’s current recycling infrastructure – one of the steps on the path to developing a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) program. Minnesota’s EPR program became law on May 21, 2024, covering packaging and packaging components, food packaging, and paper products. It requires producers – such as manufacturers, brand owners, and importers –to identify, join, and pay fees to a producer responsibility organization. The information provided on the state’s existing recycling infrastructure will support the needs assessment that MPCA must complete by December 31, which will among other things set baselines for EPR performance in Minnesota and suggest statewide program requirements for rates of recycling, composting, re-use and return of packaging. Under HF 3911, starting in 2032, all packaging, food packaging, and paper products on the Minnesota marketplace must be refillable, reusable, recyclable, or compostable. In scope are all producers with USD2 million in annual global revenue or 1 ton of packaging sold in the state.

Massachusetts Senate passes environmental bond measure with modest EPR provision. On April 15, the Massachusetts Senate overwhelmingly passed S 3050, “An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities” – a bond measure that would provide USD3.6 billion to support a broad array of environmental projects in the state. In January, the state’s EPR Commission recommended creating a statewide EPR program that addresses batteries, paint, mattresses, and electronics. The EPR provisions in S 3050 solely affect paint. However, S 3050 does contain certain measures to address the consumption of everyday plastics. In particular, the bill would ban single-use plastic carryout bags; retailers would be allowed to offer food-service ware only on request; and black plastic ware would be banned unless used for “prepared food packaged outside the commonwealth.” S 3050 also contains significant funding for several large-scale environmental programs, among them improvements to coastal infrastructure and protection of drinking water infrastructure. Next, the measure heads to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The current two-year legislative session ends on July 31.

Launch of Maryland’s paint recycling program. Pursuant to SB 0325, the Maryland Paint Stewardship Act, the state of Maryland has launched a new program for recycling paints, stains, and varnishes. The program, launched in April, allows individuals to dispose of these products, free of charge, at more than 100 sites across the state. Many of these stores are paint retailers that are open daily. Maryland’s program, similar to already extant programs in nine other states and the District of Columbia, is administered by PaintCare, a nonprofit product stewardship organization created by the paint industry in 2009 to help states that have enacted paint stewardship laws. Funding for the program is derived from fees imposed on new paint sales, which are based on container size – for example, a fee of 95 cents is added to the purchase of a one- to two-gallon container. PaintCare already manages similar recycling programs in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, DC.

European Commission issues FAQs, new guidance on the PPWR. The European Commission has published FAQs and interpretative guidance to support the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which comes into effect on August 12. The PPWR requires all manufacturers, importers, and distributors to ensure that all packaging offered on the EU market is recyclable, designed for reuse, and contains a minimum recycled content. It covers packaging of any type and applies throughout the entire product life cycle, from production to disposal. The lengthy, highly technical guidance, released on March 30, aims to facilitate uniform application of the PPWR by clarifying company responsibilities, definitions, and compliance requirements. For instance, it sets out the Commission’s views on the definitions of such terms as “packaging,” “manufacturer,” and “permeable.” It discusses such concerns as how to determine whether particular items are packaging, how to identify the producer of packaging, packaging minimization requirements, the relationship between the PPWR and the Single-Use Plastics Directive, and the application date of the PPWR to reusable packaging. The FAQs, meanwhile, complement the guidance, addressing specific queries recently received by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment. The FAQs contain 131 questions organized into 18 sections that address such topics as Recycled content in plastic packaging, obligations of manufacturers, packaging minimization, and deposit and return systems.

Find out more about EPR. Visit our Extended Producer Responsibility Hub to learn more about our work assisting businesses on their EPR obligations up and down the supply chain.

Sustainability: Regulatory

CARB proposes further revisions to Cap-and-Invest program. On April 14, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced additional revisions to the state’s Cap-and-Invest program to address rising affordability concerns, citing “short-term economic uncertainty caused by federal policy developments, loss of federal incentives, global events, and volatile market conditions.” The program, formerly known as cap-and-trade, was re-authorized last year through January 1, 2046. Reportedly, the tweaks address concerns raised earlier this year by oil and gas companies. The latest proposals would provide industry with about USD800 million in compliance support; double to USD4 billion the incentive fund for eligible oil and gas manufacturers and refiners that make appropriate updates to reduce their emissions; and raise the California Climate Credit to USD10 billion through 2030, an increase from the prior USD8 billion. CARB’s board of governors will consider the proposals during a public meeting slated for May 28. If the rules are adopted, they will go into effect on September 1.

Utah enacts first-in-nation climate shield law. Utah has become the first US state to enact a climate liability shield law – HB 222, signed by Governor Spencer J. Cox in late March. The landmark measure sets a high evidentiary standard, requiring potential plaintiffs to provide “clear and convincing evidence” that a company or individual violated a specific emissions statute or permit when emitting greenhouse gases – effectively shielding any entity in Utah from liabilities arising from climate harm linked to GHGs. As ProPublica recently reported, the bill is part of a larger set of state legislative efforts in the US intended to limit ongoing climate accountability lawsuits and prevent new ones from being filed. Similar laws are being considered in ten other state legislatures. Utah HB 222 is already in effect.

Maine legislature passes bill requiring study of financial impact of historical GHG emissions. On April 2, Maine’s legislature passed LD 1870, a bill “to Assess the Total Cost to the State of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The measure will fund a comprehensive study by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to assess and document the financial cost of climate change for the state. In 2025, the legislature considered two measures, LD 1870 and LD 1808, that together would have created a climate superfund similar to those in New York and Vermont. Following guidance from the DEP, the legislature decided to postpone consideration of LD 1808 pending the outcome of the Vermont Climate Superfund litigation. LD 1870 was revised to focus solely on assessing the monetary impact of climate-related damages incurred in Maine due to GHGs emitted between 1995 and 2024. LD 1870 is widely seen as a precursor to future climate superfund legislation. Senator Stacy Brenner, its sponsor, stated, “A climate superfund would offer a common-sense, fiscally responsible and equitable approach to protecting Maine’s future in the face of climate change. LD 1870 is a necessary first step down that path.” At this writing, LD 1870 is before the legislature’s Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, awaiting approval for its USD600,000 in funding. If that funding is approved, it will proceed to Governor Janet T. Mills for review.

Consultation open for latest draft regulations in support of UK CBAM. On April 10, the UK’s government released the latest draft regulations detailing how embedded emissions data will be calculated, monitored, verified, and tracked under the UK’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). CBAMs, such as the one already in force in the EU, are tax mechanisms that address the carbon cost of producing imported high-carbon products – aluminum, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen, iron, and steel. In scope of the UK’s CBAM are companies importing GBP50,000 or more of such goods into the UK over a 12-month period. This consultation, which remains open until May 21, particularly focuses on UK-based importers, overseas producers that export to the UK, downstream companies that use CBAM goods in their supply chains, and overseas accreditation bodies. This is the third set of draft regulations supporting various aspects of CBAM, as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs works to establish its regulatory framework ahead of its entry into force in January 2027.

PFAS in waste: Key industrial compliance planning considerations for 2026. This year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to advance its focus on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on multiple fronts. These developments raise new compliance and planning considerations for companies across food and beverage, manufacturing, chemicals, petrochemicals, energy, electronics, textiles and coatings, and waste management sectors. Our alert highlights where regulatory attention is headed – and what companies in these industries may be assessing now to stay ahead of evolving PFAS expectations.

Sustainability: Litigation

Oral arguments in USA v. Vermont. On March 30, the US District Court of Vermont heard oral arguments in USA v. Vermont, in which the federal government is seeking to overturn Vermont’s landmark S 259, the state’s Climate Superfund Act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Vermont’s law is an unlawful attempt to regulate GHG emissions that cross state lines. Riley W. Walters, counsel to the Assistant Attorney General (AG) for the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, stated, “It’s about Vermont’s attempt to subject global energy production and activity to Vermont law, which brazenly disregards the constitutional division of power in the federal government and the states.” In response, Vermont Solicitor General Jonathan Rose stated that the act “is intended to recover some of the costs it’s going to need to adapt to climate change… What it doesn’t do is, it doesn’t try to mitigate climate change, stop climate change, or otherwise impact global emissions.” S 259 requires that Vermont complete a series of specific actions before apportioning recovery costs – a process that has just begun. Vermont is also arguing that litigation seeking to overturn the law is therefore premature. The court further asked the parties to explain how the US Supreme Court’s coming decision in the Boulder climate litigation could affect their case.

Meanwhile, Vermont is proceeding with the requirements of S 259. The Vermont Climate Action Office reports that, pursuant to S 259, the state has contracted with analytic consulting firm Industrial Economics, Incorporated, to assess the costs of GHG emissions to the state and its residents arising from the use of fossil fuels extracted or refined from 1995 to 2024. Vermont is also working to identify the fossil fuel companies that would be accountable under the law.

Broad coalition sues to block implementation of Oregon’s Climate Protection Program. On April 16, a coalition of nearly 30 petitioners, led by the advocacy group Oregon Business & Industry (OBI), filed a petition for judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals seeking to block implementation by the Oregon DEQ’s Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) of the Climate Protection Program (CPP), the state’s ambitious emissions reduction plan. The CPP was created to lower CO₂ emissions from burning gasoline, diesel, propane, and natural gas, aiming to reduce them by 50 percent compared to a 2017–19 baseline by 2035 and by 90 percent by 2050. While the CPP sets caps on emissions that decrease over time, it is not a true cap-and-trade program because it lacks a trade component. OBI notes that California’s cap-and-trade program sets a price of USD28 a ton for CO₂ emissions; the Oregon program, in contrast, charges USD136 a ton, and those costs will increase in each successive compliance period. The plaintiffs represent a broad range of stakeholders, ranging from manufacturers and business organizations to labor unions, utilities, and agricultural associations. They allege that the program’s “massive compliance costs directly translate into billions of dollars in higher energy costs for Oregonians” and that “the sweeping regulatory program oversteps the Environmental Quality Commission’s limited authority under Oregon law.” An earlier version of the CPP was invalidated by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2023. The case is OBI v. EQC. See the petition for review here and the motion to expedite here.

Maryland Supreme Court dismisses climate accountability case. Stating that the plaintiff’s claims are pre-empted by federal law and “cannot be seriously contemplated,” the Maryland Supreme Court dismissed long-standing lawsuits brought by three local jurisdictions – the city of Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, and the city of Baltimore – against 26 oil and gas companies. In October 2025, the plaintiffs argued that their cases should proceed in state court because they are based on alleged violations of state laws addressing deceptive marketing practices – public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The state Supreme Court, however, found that the local governments were seeking to regulate interstate emissions, a function that resides solely with the federal government under the Clean Air Act. The majority opinion in the case stated, “No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm.” In his dissent, Justice Peter K. Killough stated that the majority had got it wrong. He wrote, “It is clear from the Majority Opinion that it did not decide the case Plaintiffs brought. Rather, it decided the case Defendants described.” He continued, “The local governments deserve the opportunity to be heard on the merits of their claims… In its haste to close the courthouse doors, the Majority has built its edifice on sinking ground.”

But other climate accountability cases are moving forward. The Maryland court’s March 24 decision contrasts with recent State Supreme Court rulings in other climate accountability cases in Colorado and Hawaii, which similarly concern alleged violations of state laws regulating marketing conduct. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear another similar lawsuit brought by jurisdictions in Colorado – nicknamed the Boulder litigation – and denied certiorari in another lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii charging that two energy companies “intentionally misled the public” about the environmental impact of their products; that case will proceed in state court. On April 15, the US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed a lawsuit brought last year by the federal government that sought to pre-emptively prevent Hawaii from suing major oil and gas companies seeking damages for harms caused by climate change. The court stated that the government’s arguments about an “abstract, theoretical future harm” to the US were not a valid basis for a lawsuit.

Preliminary injunction addresses federal permitting policies affecting solar and wind projects. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has issued a preliminary injunction in litigation over the legality of the challenged federal policies affecting the development of clean energy projects. The 73-page injunction, issued on April 21, requires the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Army Corps of Engineers to end a set of policies that limit solar and wind energy permitting on public and private land. Specifically, it addresses:

• The DOI “review procedures” memo, which makes at least 68 permitting actions subject to personal review by the Secretary of the Interior
• SO 3438, nicknamed the land order, which requires consideration of land capacity density during the permitting process
• A memorandum directing the Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize an energy generation project's energy density or energy generation-per-acre as it makes permitting decisions
• An opinion issued by Gregory Zerzan, General Counsel of the Department of Transportation – nicknamed the Zerzan M-opinion – which affects lease, easement, or right-of-way permitting on the Outer Continental Shelf
• A memorandum from the DOI declaring that solar and wind projects cannot use the DOI’s Information for Planning and Consultation website prior to review by the Office of the Deputy Secretary and final review by the Office of the Secretary

The plaintiffs, a coalition of regional solar and wind developers, alleged that the Trump Administration’s actions violate federal statutes and would cause irreparable harm if the court did not intervene. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of those claims. The preliminary injunction applies solely to members of the plaintiff groups involved in the litigation. It will go into effect while the case proceeds.

Greenwashing

Three more lawsuits challenge coffee pod recyclability claims. Three more putative class actions have been filed challenging Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc.’s labeling and advertisement of its K-Cup single-use beverage pods as “recyclable.” Similar to the putative class action brought in Florida in January, each of these highly similar cases alleges that a vast majority of consumers are unable to recycle K-Cup pods: Recycling centers typically do not accept the cups, as the California case states, “due to their small size, contamination issues, and unfavorable economic factors.” The first of these three suits, brought in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court on April 1, is Clarissa Alvarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. The second is Ryan Dixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., filed on April 7, in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, and the third is Tracy Sulli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keurig Dr Pepper, brought on April 10, in the US District Court for the Western District of New York.

Addressing greenwashing in advertising, Italy transposes EU Empowering Consumers Directive into law. Italy’s Legislative Decree No. 30/2026 – which transposes the EU’s Empowering Consumers Directive into Italian law – has entered into force. The Decree amends Italy’s Consumer Code to address environmental and sustainability claims in advertising. It is founded on a requirement to substantiate any green claims. To establish a framework for assessing compliance, the Decree sets out new legal definitions for of such terms as "environmental claim," "generic environmental claim," "certification system," and "sustainability label.” It requires that the use of terms suggesting environmental benefits, such as “carbon neutral,” be substantiated through recognized certification systems or through proven “excellence” in environmental performance. The Decree also addresses deceptive claims about product repairability and durability, and it treats social washing – defined as misleading claims about gender equality or human rights – with the same severity as greenwashing. The Italian Competition Authority is empowered to impose fines ranging from EUR5,000 to EUR10 million for violations of the Decree. The Decree becomes fully applicable on September 27, allowing a transitional period for companies to come into compliance.

Supply chain integrity and human rights

Initiative addresses forced labor on tuna boats. On April 13, the Ethical Tuna Collaboration announced the launch of the design phase of an industry-wide initiative to address forced labor at the vessel level. The initiative aims to address three priorities for workers on tuna boats: timely payment of wages per contract terms; no fisher-paid recruitment fees; and fisher access to effective grievance mechanisms and Wi-Fi while at sea. The Ethical Tuna Collaboration was convened by the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions (CASS), a nonprofit promoting sustainable seafood, which states that the working group is embarking on “a one-year rapid design process to create a blueprint for the initiative and select an implementing organization.” The design process will include outreach to stakeholders at all levels of the supply chain, frontline organizations that represent fishers, international labor rights and sustainability organizations, and other relevant experts. That phase, including two rounds of stakeholder feedback later this year, is expected to wind up in spring 2027. After that, CASS stated, “Companies and NGOs will determine individually if they will endorse and join the initiative after the design process concludes.” The initiative also intends to create overarching guidelines that could be expanded to address other human and labor rights issues.

SBTi issues updated forest, land, and agriculture guidance. To help make ambitious climate action more accessible, SBTi has issued Version 1.2 of its Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance. Already in effect, the FLAG guidance was designed to help businesses set practical yet broad climate goals, among them ending deforestation and cutting emissions across the supply chain. The updates to the guidance generally address the setting of FLAG targets, closer alignment with the GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals Standard, and the inclusion of no-deforestation target dates, as well as a requirement to publish documentation demonstrating how companies will deliver their no-deforestation commitments. SBTi states, “All companies that are required to set FLAG targets, and submit targets in 2026 or later, including before Version 1.2 was published, must align their no-deforestation commitments with the updated requirements.”

OSHA’s proposed heat rule: Compliance and enforcement considerations ahead of finalization. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed a rule “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.” that, if finalized, would be the first federal labor rule to specifically address heat-related risks. The rule would impose nationwide, affirmative obligations on employers to evaluate and control heat exposure in both outdoor and indoor environments. Its finalization would represent a new development for employers subject to OSHA’s jurisdiction, adding to the existing set of legal and compliance obligations companies face in connection with environmental risks. This alert discusses the proposed rulemaking, existing enforcement mechanisms, and compliance considerations for employers ahead of any final rule.

Energy and natural resources

Virginia will rejoin multi-state carbon trading program. A bill signed by Virginia Governor Abigail D. Spanberger on April 13 requires the Commonwealth of Virginia to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state carbon trading program that mandates electricity producers in participating states to purchase allowances for the CO₂ emissions they produce above RGGI-established limits. Former Governor Glenn Youngkin withdrew the state from the RGGI in 2023; in November 2024, the Floyd County Circuit Court ruled that the state’s withdrawal from the RGGI was illegal and that Virginia must rejoin. Virginia will officially return to the RGGI on July 1, according to the DEQ. The measure, HB 397/SB 802, requires the Commonwealth to use 50 percent of the monies garnered through the RGGI on energy efficiency programs for low-income residents and 45 percent on localities and residents impacted by extreme weather events; the remaining 5 percent will cover administrative costs. Before exiting the initiative, Virginia had received about USD830 million, which it applied to flood planning, climate resilience, and energy efficiency programs.

Québec, California, and Washington State announce climate agreement for market-based GHG reduction programs. Québec, California, and Washington have released a draft agreement to align and link their cap-and-invest programs for reducing GHG emissions. The draft agreement is non-binding, and each jurisdiction would need to authorize linkage of their cap-and-invest programs to complete the process. Under the draft agreement, businesses operating in any of these three jurisdictions would be able to trade emissions allowances in a single marketplace. Our alert tells you more.

Connecticut legislators consider adding surcharge to fossil fuel companies’ infrastructure insurance. The Connecticut legislature is considering SB 453, which would add a 5-percent surcharge to commercial property and casualty insurance policies covering fossil fuel company infrastructure – facilities like refineries, terminals, and pipelines. If enacted, SB 453 would be the first legislation in the US to focus on a specific underwriting class. It would apply, beginning January 1, 2027, to any new or renewed insurance policy, including captive insurance policies, that “facilitates or expands oil, methane gas, or coal processing, exporting, or transporting.” Monies raised through the levy would be remitted to the Connecticut insurance commissioner to fund a newly established climate resilience account, which would be used to help local jurisdictions harden their infrastructure against damage from extreme weather. Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection already administers a Climate Resilience Fund, which last year began offering USD33 million in state funds and USD11.8 million in federal funds to help communities plan and design projects that protect against extreme weather events. At this writing, SB 453 has moved out of committee and is undergoing financial analysis.

European Commission announces AccelerateEU strategy, supporting the green transition, shielding Europeans from surging energy costs. On April 22, the European Commission announced its AccelerateEU strategy, a set of actions aiming to protect Europeans from the ⁠impact of surging energy prices while speeding the expansion of homegrown clean energy. The strategy contains both short- and long-term proposals with the goal of mitigating present and future fossil fuel supply disruptions. Among the measures set out in the strategy are proposals to:

• Reduce energy costs by encouraging member states to use existing flexibilities to lower electricity taxes and charges
• Accelerate electrification by incentivizing electrified industrial and heating processes and removing regulatory barriers
• Scale up EU support for industrial decarbonization by strengthening and better targeting EU funding and financing tools, as well as simplifying EU funding rules to mobilize investment more quickly in clean energy and energy system resilience
• Prepare further measures, including a forthcoming EU Electrification Action Plan, to support economy wide electrification

Proposals to amend the tax rules are expected next month. An EU Electrification Action Plan, including measures to remove barriers to the electrification of the industrial, transportation, and building sectors, is expected to be issued this summer.

In 2025, renewables overtook coal as a global electricity source. Last summer, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that electricity generation from renewables would overtake coal as soon as 2026. That day has already come. For the first time since 1919, renewables have surpassed coal as a global source of power, according to research by global energy think tank Ember – and the IEA’s Global Energy Review 2026 reached a similar conclusion. Renewables such as wind and solar supplied 34 percent of the world’s electricity in 2025, while coal provided 33 percent, Ember found. Its report also concluded that China remains at the global forefront in deployment of renewable infrastructure – in 2025, the study found that more than two-thirds of the world’s new wind power projects and more than half of new solar capacity were installed by China. Finally, global generation of clean electricity increased by 887 terawatt-hours (TWh) last year, which slightly exceeded demand growth of 849 TWh. IEA’s review contributed to this same picture, stating that in 2025, photovoltaic solar systems met more than 25 percent of the world’s higher demand, followed by natural gas, which contributed 17 percent. The IEA added, “This was the first time on record that a modern renewable source contributed the largest share of global energy demand growth.”

Unlocking the future of low-carbon heating: Why the UK’s heat network regulation is a game-changer. Emerging regulation of heat networks is among the key developments in the UK’s transition to net zero. With the Energy Act 2023 laying the groundwork, and new energy regulator Ofgem stepping into its role, the heat network industry is entering a transformational period that could affect investors, consumers, and communities. Our alert explores the implications of the emerging regulatory framework for market players.

Sustainability in financial services

State AGs focus on credit ratings agencies’ ESG practices. On April 22, 23 State AGs sent a letter to the three major credit ratings agencies – Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S&P Global Ratings – questioning the lawfulness under federal securities laws, state consumer protection laws, and antitrust laws of their incorporation of ESG considerations into credit ratings. Among other allegations, the states argue that the ratings agencies’ use of ESG considerations resulted in improperly downgrading fossil fuel companies based on “highly speculative ESG predictions and goals”; violates their own stated ratings methodologies; and creates a material conflict of interest, because it increases demand for the credit agencies’ own suite of ESG-related consulting products and services. The letter requests that the agencies (i) provide additional information on ESG-driven downgrades, or reverse such downgrades; (ii) withdraw from or disclose ESG commitments, namely the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI; (iii) revise and provide additional information on ESG-related methodologies – in particular, sector-specific methodologies for the oil and gas industry; (iv) cease providing ESG advisory or consulting services, or disclose ESG consulting-related conflicts of interest; and (v) provide a written certification that the agencies’ internal controls have been reviewed and updated to prevent ESG commitments from influencing credit determinations. At this writing, the ratings agencies have not responded to the letter.

Canada convenes planning council to develop sustainable finance taxonomy. On April 10, Business Future Pathways Canada announced the makeup of the 17-member Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council, the entity that will steer the development of a new Canadian sustainable finance taxonomy and administer the creation of climate transition planning guidance for Canadian businesses. A sustainable finance taxonomy is a science-based classification system that defines environmentally sustainable economic activities to support decisions about capital allocation. Among the business leaders and technical experts taking part in the Council are Marlene Puffer, former Chief Investment Officer of real estate investment firm AIMCo, who will chair the Council, and Jamey Hubbs, former Vice Superintendent, Policy Innovation, Stakeholder Affairs, Strategy, Risk & Governance of Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, who will serve as vice-chair. The announcement follows the federal government’s decision in December 2025 to provide two years of seed funding to support the development of the taxonomy. The Canadian Climate Institute, which will lead the research and technical work to inform development of the taxonomy, stated that the Council will aim to develop criteria for green investments as well as transition investments and will “prioritize guidelines for investment in projects and sectors that are most essential to Canada’s economic growth while ensuring alignment with international investment taxonomies and science-driven climate targets.” The Council has been tasked with finalizing investment guidelines for three priority sectors by the end of 2026 and with completing three additional priority sectors by fall 2027.

Calendar

Key global reporting deadlines

^{This calendar highlights coming reporting deadlines in key jurisdictions and is not a comprehensive summary of global sustainability regulations. Our Sustainability team’s interactive Global Sustainability Regulatory Dashboard provides our clients with an in-depth, comprehensive analysis of global sustainability regulations pertinent to their business. For more information about the Global Sustainability Regulatory Dashboard, please contact us via DLAPiperCorporateDataAnalytics@us.dlapiper.com.}

Coming events

• DLA Piper’s Charging Up Capital: Global Energy and Digital Investments Forum, exploring the converging investment and financing landscape across energy and digital infrastructure, takes place June 17, 2026 in the firm’s London office. Lawyers from more than 20 key jurisdictions will offer practical insights into such areas as renewables, EV charging, e-fuels, critical minerals, and more. Find out more by contacting Francesca Corradini, and register your interest here.
• The Latin America Climate Summit takes place June 2 to 4, 2026 in Monterrey, Mexico.
  
• London Climate Action Week takes place June 20 to 28, 2026 in London.
• Climate Week NYC takes place September 20 to 27, 2026 in New York City.
• The 2026 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) will be held in November 2026 in Antalya, Turkey, with Australia presiding over negotiations.
• The 2026 United Nations Water Conference will take place December 2 to 4, 2026 in the United Arab Emirates.

For professional responsibility reasons, these summaries may not include discussions of developments relating to certain matters.