It's Not Easy Being Green: ESG Claims And Potential Protections (Podcast)

Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to immediately halt all environmental permits for data center projects, expanding a statewide regulatory freeze that now encompasses power, water, and environmental approvals. This directive establishes strict operational mandates requiring data centers to fully fund infrastructure costs, report all resource consumption...

Governor Abbott has ordered Texas environmental regulators to halt all data center permit issuance until grid operators complete a comprehensive audit in mid-December 2026. The sweeping directive affects not only grid-connected facilities but also fully islanded data centers relying on behind-the-meter generation, creating uncertainty for developers and their contractual obligations.

California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) establishes a November 10, 2026 deadline for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions reporting, affecting U.S.-formed entities with over $1 billion in revenue that meet California's "doing business" test—regardless of physical presence in the state. The law carries penalties up to $500,000 per reporting year for non-compliance, with mandatory program fees and future Scope 3 reporting requirements on the horizon.

On September 21, 2026, Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to halt issuance of permits to data centers until the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) completes an audit of impacts on the Texas electric grid and water resources.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has directed state agencies to halt all data center permits until comprehensive audits assess the projects' impacts on electric infrastructure, residential ratepayers, and water resources. The directive requires data centers to fully fund necessary electric infrastructure and comply with enhanced reporting requirements, while the governor signals potential legislative action to codify new protections and phase out certain tax incentives.

This quarterly newsletter examines critical developments in chemical regulatory law, covering litigation outcomes that reshape EPA's authority under TSCA, landmark Supreme Court decisions on pesticide labeling preemption, and emerging state and international frameworks governing PFAS and other chemicals of concern. The edition analyzes how recent Fifth Circuit rulings on methylene chloride regulations may fundamentally alter EPA's approach to risk evaluations and management rules across its entire existing

California has enacted seven unprecedented bills targeting data center development, imposing sweeping new requirements for energy reporting, water consumption assessments, labor standards, and electricity rate structures. These laws fundamentally reshape the regulatory landscape for data centers, requiring detailed disclosures at multiple project stages while prohibiting categorical CEQA exemptions and establishing new interconnection rules that shift infrastructure costs directly to developers.

California voters will decide on Proposition 45 this November, a sweeping initiative that would fundamentally reshape environmental review for housing, infrastructure, and other essential projects across the state. The Building an Affordable California Act promises faster approvals and limited judicial challenges, but faces organized opposition from labor unions and environmental groups. Will this measure succeed in streamlining development, or does it go too far in curtailing environmental protections?

On September 30, Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC was hit with a lawsuit in California superior court concerning its Carefree brand of menstrual liners.

Beginning October 10, 2026, the European Union will restrict certain concentrations of PFHxA and related substances in clothing and footwear, marking a significant expansion of PFAS regulations affecting the apparel and textile industry. Companies face a complex patchwork of requirements as France, Denmark, and multiple U.S. states implement their own PFAS restrictions with varying scopes, thresholds, and compliance approaches. Navigating these divergent regulations requires careful supply chain evaluation