Environmental Law Archives - Page 16 of 43

Wisconsin Judge Rules that the WDNR Lacks Authority to Regulate PFAS

On April 12, 2022, a Wisconsin judge ruled in the case of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. and Leather Rich, Inc. v. WDNR, (Waukesha County Case 2021CV000342) that the WDNR lacks the authority to regulate PFAS chemicals because the Wisconsin Legislature has not established regulatory standards for them. According to the lawsuit, Leather Rich, Inc. entered into a voluntary WDNR environmental cleanup program in 2019, and the following year WDNR indicated that the businesses enrolled in the program were required to test for emerging contaminants, including PFAS. The plaintiffs in the case argued that because the WDNR had created a list of emerging contaminants without any legislative oversight or opportunity for public comment, and had not adopted regulatory standards through administrative rulemaking, the WDNR lacked the authority to require such testing. The judge’s ruling would require the WDNR to wait until legislators have established standards for PFAS through adoption of regulatory limits in state law or through administrative rules. It is estimated that the adoption of standards for PFAS could require 1-2 years. An attorney for the WDNR indicated that the WDNR plans to appeal the decision and file a motion to place the judge’s order on hold.

The WDNR has historically taken the position that the agency has authority under Wisconsin’s “Hazardous Substance Spill Act” (“Spill Act” – Wis. Stats. 292.11) to regulate PFAS even in the absence of established standards, as the Spill Act gives the WDNR broad authority to require testing and remediation of such chemicals. In late February, the WDNR’s Natural Resources Board (NRB)—the entity that sets policy for the WDNR—took steps toward the adoption of statewide standards for two of the most common PFAS compounds, which included an approval to adopt a drinking water standard of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of the most common PFAS compounds; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and polyfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).

PFAS is an acronym for per- and polyfluorolalkyl substances, which are chemicals that were widely used from the 1960s to the early 2000s in the manufacture of a variety of consumer products, such as stain resistant carpets, non-stick cookware (e.g., Teflon), firefighting foam, food packaging (e.g., microwave popcorn bags/pizza boxes), water resistant clothing (e.g., pre-2000 GoreTex), water resistant repellent (e.g., Scotchgard) and dental floss. While the use of PFAS compounds has largely been phased out in the U.S., these compounds are still used in the manufacturing of many products worldwide. These substances, known as “forever chemicals,” have received considerable attention by federal and state environmental regulatory agencies because of their resistance to chemical breakdown due to the chemical bond between carbon and fluorine atoms in the PFAS compounds, which is one of the strongest in nature. Because of this, humans can still be exposed to PFAS long after the chemicals were released into the environment.

The WDNR has identified approximately 90 sites throughout Wisconsin with PFAS contamination, including municipalities such as Madison, Marinette, Peshtigo and Wausau with PFAS-contaminated groundwater.

Article By David P. Ruetz with von Briesen & Roper, s.c.

For more articles about state lawsuits, visit the NLR Litigation section.

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit Again Shows ESG Risks of Marketing

In less than six months, L’Oreal has now found itself to be the target of PFAS lawsuits related to its mascara products. The latest L’Oreal PFAS lawsuit was filed in the New Jersey federal court on April 8, 2022. Cosmetics and PFAS is a topic that saw increased scrutiny from the scientific community, legislature, and the media in 2021. As we predicted in early 2021, the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry, and our prediction was that the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits. In less than three months, four industry giants – Shiseido, CoverGirl, L’Oreal and Burt’s Bees – were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS content in some of the companies’ products. The industry, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical with niche interest in cosmetics companies must pay careful attention to the cosmetics lawsuits and the increasing trend of lawsuits targeting the industry.

PFAS and Cosmetics: the 2021 Foundation

On June 15, 2021, a scientific study in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Letters published conclusions regarding testing of a variety of cosmetics products from the United States and Canada for PFAS content, and found PFAS present in over half of the products. On the same day that the study was published, the No PFAS In Cosmetics Act 2021 was introduced in the Senate by U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Angus King (I-ME). The bill sought to ban PFAS in cosmetics.

These two developments led us to conclude “with these developments, our prediction that cosmetics is the number two target for PFAS litigation issues behind water rings true.”

Why PFAS In Cosmetics Is A Concern

PFAS content in cosmetics raises concerns for human health in scientific communities due to the fact that PFAS are capable of entering the bloodstream in ways other than direct oral ingestion, and one of these ways includes dermal absorption. Concerns have also been raised regarding absorption of PFAS into the bloodstream by way of tear ducts. The absorption issue is one that is being studied fairly extensively through various pending scientific studies. At the end of 2021, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) went so far as to recommend that citizens in Southern New Hampshire reduce their risk of further PFAS exposure by avoiding the use of certain consumer goods, including cosmetics.

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit

On April 8, 2022, plaintiff Rebecca Vega filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey federal court seeking a proposed class action lawsuit against LOreal. The L’Oreal PFAS lawsuit alleges that the company does not disclose to consumers that its mascara and other products contain PFAS. Instead, the lawsuit states, the products were fraudulently and misleadingly marketed as safe for consumers and environmentally friendly, in violation of federal and state consumer laws. The Complaint details several examples of L’Oreal marketing indicating the safe nature of the products.

The plaintiff seeks certification of the class action lawsuit, injunctive relief, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. The proposed class is any consumer in the United States, or in the subclass of New Jersey, who purchased the relevant L’Oreal products.

Just the Beginning For Cosmetics Industry

With studies underway, legislation pending that targets cosmetics, and increasing media reporting on cosmetics concerns to human health, the cosmetics industry has a target on its back with respect to PFAS that will have impacts on the industry’s involvement in litigation. Twelve months ago, we made this prediction: “Personal injury / products liability cases, false advertising, and failure to disclose theories of liability are some of the more prominent allegations that cosmetics companies are likely to face. Further, the cosmetics industry is concerned about federal and state level regulatory enforcement action for environmental pollution remediation costs stemming from placing PFAS waste into the environment as a by-product of the manufacturing process.”

The first part of our prediction is becoming reality, as four significant cosmetics industry players now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports. The lawsuits may well serve as a test case for plaintiffs’ bar to determine whether similar lawsuits will be successful in any (or all) of the fifty states in this country. Each cosmetics company faces the stark possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in all fifty states for products that contain PFAS.

It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from cosmetics products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

Conclusion

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the cosmetics industry evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Now, the first wave of lawsuits take direct aim at the cosmetics industry. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

Article By John Gardella with CMBG3 Law.

For more articles on ESG lawsuits, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

EPA Will Propose to Ban Ongoing Uses of Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) announced on April 5, 2022, that it will propose to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the United States. EPA notes that the proposed rule will be “the first-ever risk management rule issued under the new process for evaluating and addressing the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was enacted in 2016.” EPA will propose to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos. EPA will also propose targeted disposal and recordkeeping requirements in line with industry standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA has posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period.

Background

As reported in our January 4, 2021, memorandum, EPA released on December 30, 2020, the final risk evaluation for asbestos, part 1: chrysotile asbestos (Asbestos RE Part 1). Of the six use categories evaluated (chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets, other gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, and other vehicle friction products), EPA found that there is unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, and/or bystanders within each of the six chrysotile asbestos use categories. EPA found no unreasonable risk to the environment. According to the final risk evaluation, chrysotile is the prevailing form of asbestos currently mined worldwide, and “so it is assumed that a majority of commercially available products fabricated overseas that contain asbestos are made with chrysotile. Any asbestos being imported into the U.S. in articles is believed to be chrysotile.” The other five forms of asbestos are now subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR), as reported in our April 18, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Announces Final SNUR for Asbestos Will ‘Close Loophole and Protect Consumers.’”

Proposed Rule

EPA will propose a rule under TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks used in the oil industry, aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products (not including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Super Guppy Turbine aircraft use), and other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will further propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of: aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings for consumer use, and commercial use of other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets for consumer use. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose disposal and recordkeeping requirements under which regulated parties would document compliance with certain proposed prohibitions. EPA states that it does not intend the proposed prohibitions on processing or distribution in commerce to prohibit any processing or distribution in commerce incidental to disposal of the chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance with the proposed requirements.

According to EPA, because a determination has been made that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to health within the United States or to the environment of the United States, pursuant to TSCA Section 12(a)(2), the proposed rule would apply to chrysotile asbestos even if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce solely for export from the United States.

Commentary

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C^®) commends EPA on this historical achievement. Unsurprisingly, there are aspects of this precedent-setting proposed rule that invite discussion and warrant comment from affected parties. Key among these issues is a potential significant legal vulnerability in the underlying risk evaluation (i.e., Asbestos RE Part 1) for the proposed rule, an issue that may overshadow this historic achievement in a manner reminiscent of EPA’s failed ban of asbestos in 1991 (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir., 1991)).

EPA proposed that the prohibition on specific conditions of use (e.g., chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry) would take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA stated that it “believes an aggressive transition away from chrysotile asbestos will spur adoption of superior technology [e.g., membrane cells with increased concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)].” The clear need to consider EPA’s intended action on asbestos in the context of its ongoing actions on PFAS is of course not lost on the Agency. EPA acknowledged that “the transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms could result in greater usage and release of PFAS.”

B&C notes that innovative new technologies, such as alternative membrane cells, may be available in the future, but those technologies must be proven to be economically and technically viable. Once proven effective, the underlying chemical substances must be reviewed as new chemicals if so classified under TSCA. The development, review, and approval are all on indeterminate timelines, so it is speculative when novel, non-PFAS-based technologies will be commercially available and, of course, whether that time will be prior to the effective date of EPA’s proposed ban on asbestos.

EPA requested comment on specific aspects of the proposed rule that B&C encourages potentially impacted parties to consider. For example, EPA discussed its authority under TSCA Section 6(g) to grant a time-limited exemption for a specific condition of use, such as the chlor-alkali industry, where EPA finds “that compliance with the proposed requirement would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.”

EPA also requested comment on a primary alternative regulatory option that EPA discussed for the chlor-alkali diaphragm and sheet gasket categories that would allow a prohibition to take effect five years after the effective date of the final rule. As part of this option, EPA would include establishment of a risk-based performance standard known as an existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL). EPA developed an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) ECEL of 0.005 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc) for inhalation exposures to chrysotile asbestos as an eight-hr TWA ECEL-action level of 0.0025 f/cc, with associated requirements for initial and periodic monitoring and respirator usage/type if exceedances are found.

As part of the monitoring requirements, EPA stated that it would “require use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods to determine asbestos exposure, including: … Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at 40 CFR Part 792,” despite the fact that EPA acknowledges that other standards, such as Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP), are more appropriate for industrial hygiene monitoring. EPA’s TSCA Section 5(e) order template states the following under Section III.D:

Compliance with TSCA GLPS, however, is not required under this New Chemical Exposure Limit Section where the analytical method is verified by a laboratory accredited by either: the American Industrial Hygiene Association (“AIHA”) Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (“IHLAP”) or another comparable program approved in advance in writing by EPA.

EPA devoted one paragraph in the proposed rule to “TSCA section 26(h) considerations.” EPA stated, in part, that its unreasonable risk determination “was based on a risk evaluation, which was subject to peer review and public comment, was developed in a manner consistent with the best available science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) [and 26(i)] and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45.”

B&C notes that EPA stated in the Asbestos RE Part 1 the following:

TSCA § 26(h) and (i) require EPA, when conducting Risk Evaluations, to use scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies and models consistent with the best available science and base its decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence. To meet these TSCA § 26 science standards, EPA used the TSCA systematic review process described in the [2018] Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document [citation omitted] [2018 SR Document].

Prior to completing Asbestos RE Part 1, EPA requested the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to review the 2018 SR Document. In February 2021, NASEM released its consensus study report on EPA’s 2018 SR Document and concluded that it did not meet the criteria of “comprehensive, workable, objective, and transparent” and that “The OPPT approach to systematic review does not adequately meet the state-of-practice.”

NASEM recommended that “With regard to hazard assessment for human and ecological receptors, OPPT should step back from the approach that it has taken and consider components of the OHAT, IRIS, and Navigation Guide methods that could be incorporated directly and specifically into hazard assessment.”

In response to the NASEM review, EPA revised its systematic review method. On December 20, 2021, EPA released the “Draft Systematic Review Protocol Supporting TSCA Risk Evaluations for Chemical Substances” (2021 Draft Protocol) for public comment. EPA acknowledged in the 2021 Draft Protocol that:

Previously [in the 2018 SR Document], EPA did not have a complete clear and documented TSCA systematic review (SR) Protocol. EPA is addressing this lack of a priori protocol by releasing [the 2021 Draft Protocol].

EPA further stated that the:

[2021 Draft Protocol] is significantly different [from the 2018 SR Document] in that it includes descrition [sic] of the Evidence Integration process…, which was not previously included in the [2018 SR Document].

B&C recognizes that the scientific methods used to inform systematic review are not static and that updates will be required as the science evolves. In this instance, however, many of the documents cited as supporting information for updating the 2021 Draft Protocol (e.g., Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), 2015) were available prior to EPA issuing the 2018 SR Document. Rather than utilizing these documents at the time, EPA developed the 2018 SR Document de novo. In other words, EPA chose to develop its own methodology in 2018 rather than incorporating and adapting existing methodologies that represented the best available science at the time.

These issues raise interesting procedural questions and issues around whether EPA demonstrated that Asbestos RE Part 1 was based on the best available science and weight of scientific evidence, as required under TSCA Sections 26(h) and 26(i) and the implementing regulation under 40 C.F.R. Part 702.

B&C encourages stakeholders to review EPA’s proposed risk management rule on chrysotile asbestos, even for entities that do not manufacture, process, distribute, or use this substance. We urge this review because of the precedential nature of EPA’s decisions. B&C also encourages interested parties to provide public comments on the proposed rule, given that risk management decisions in the proposed rule will likely serve as a basis from which EPA regulates other chemical substances EPA is evaluating under TSCA Section 6.

Article By: the Government Regulation practice at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The SEC’s Proposed Rules on Climate-Related Disclosures – What to Do Now: A Guide for In-House Counsel Facing the Proposed Rules

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rules governing climate-related disclosures, if adopted as proposed, would represent a sea change to the existing public-company disclosure regime. The rules would require that public companies include the following, among other disclosures, in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC:

disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for all companies and Scope 3 emissions for companies¹ (other than those that qualify as “smaller reporting companies”) for which Scope 3 emissions are material or that have set emissions reduction targets that include Scope 3 emissions, with third-party attestation being required for Scope 1 and Scope 2 data for companies that qualify as “large accelerated filers” or “accelerated filers”;
extensive and detailed disclosures regarding climate-related risks, including physical risks and transition-related risks, to a company’s financial statements, business operations or value chain (i.e., upstream and downstream activities of third parties related to the company’s operations);
disclosure in the notes to audited financial statements of quantitative and qualitative information regarding financial impacts of climate-related risk, including disaggregated quantitative information with respect to impacts of physical risks or transition activities on specific financial statement line items if the impact is 1% or more of the line item;
extensive and detailed disclosures regarding climate-related governance, strategy and risk management; and
to the extent relevant to a particular company, disclosures regarding the company’s transition plan, climate-related targets or goals, use of scenario analyses or other analytical tools in evaluating climate-related risk and use of an internal carbon price.

For many companies, the rules would require enterprise-wide changes to how the company collects, assesses and reports climate-related data and other information, as well as changes to their governance structures and systems of controls. Changes may be driven both by the need to comply with the disclosure requirements and by a company’s view of how its disclosures will be received by investors or the public generally.

The tasks of understanding the implications of the proposed rules for a particular company and preparing for eventually complying with the rules are monumental, and, unfortunately, public companies currently find themselves in the difficult position of possibly needing to act with some urgency in order to be prepared to comply with rules of uncertain substance on an uncertain timeline. At this point, the proposed rules are just that – proposed and not final. The period for public comment on the proposed rules will run until May 20 at the earliest and could be extended by the SEC, and public comments are likely to reflect the controversial nature of the proposed rules and strong opinions by both supporters and detractors. After the comment period, whether and when the SEC releases final rules, and the extent to which any final rules largely follow or reflect significant changes from the proposed rules, will remain to be seen. Like the proposed rules, any final rules should provide for phase-in periods for compliance. Further, any final rules are almost certain to face legal challenges that could delay implementation of the rules even if such challenges ultimately are unsuccessful. It is therefore very difficult to predict when companies will need to comply with new rules and precisely what information they will be required to disclose under new rules.

Despite that uncertainty, it appears very likely that the SEC will adopt final climate-related disclosure rules in the not-too-distant future and that those rules will include in some form most, if not all, of the big buckets of disclosure requirements reflected in the proposed rules. Because of the significant effort and degree of organizational change that compliance with the rules likely will require, companies may not be able to wait until final rules are released to begin assessing the impacts of the proposed rules on their organizations. And, if the SEC were to adopt final rules later this year in the proposed form, companies that are large accelerated filers with a calendar fiscal year would be required to include information for 2023, including Scope 1 and 2 emissions data, in their annual reports filed in early 2024, meaning that they would need to have the systems in place to track and record the relevant information by the end of this year.

Assessing the potential impact of the proposed rules on a company and preparing the company for eventually complying with the rules will require participation from many different parts of the organization, but we expect that, at many companies, the task of setting the company on a course to do those things will fall on the general counsel and other in-house counsel with responsibility for relevant substantive areas. With that in mind, we have prepared the following guide for in-house counsel with respect to near-term actions their companies should be taking or should consider taking, depending on their circumstances. Bracewell will expand on a number of the topics noted below in future alerts, webinars or other similar communications.

1. Engage senior management, the board of directors and relevant board committees and begin assessing governance, oversight and management of climate-related risks.

In-house counsel likely will be hearing from their CEOs and board members, if they haven’t already, asking what the proposed rules mean for their company. In any case, in-house counsel should ensure that top-level management and board members understand the potential challenges and changes their companies may face with the proposed rules and encourage the level of board and senior management oversight and engagement that is appropriate for their situation. The proposed rules would require companies to provide detailed disclosures concerning their boards’ oversight of climate-related risks and management’s role in assessing and managing those risks. Although many companies already have robust board oversight of ESG matters and include related disclosures in their SEC filings, the proposed rules are far more granular in dictating the type of information that would need to be disclosed.

In that regard, in-house counsel may be asked what changes, if any, should be made to board or committee composition and structure in light of the proposed new disclosure requirements. Among other matters, consideration should be given to whether the creation of a new ESG committee – or a purely climate-focused committee – is appropriate or whether responsibility reasonably can be shouldered by an existing committee, such as the audit committee.

2. Establish organizational responsibility for assessing the implications of the proposed rules for your company.

As noted above, this is a huge task that will require input from a multidisciplinary team, including legal, accounting, operations and possibly other personnel. Identifying the right team and setting clear responsibilities and timelines are critical near-term tasks.

3. Understand the potential timeline for compliance with the proposed rules as it relates to your organization.

As noted above, there is considerable uncertainty regarding, among other matters, whether final rules will require compliance on the timelines contemplated in the proposed rules, which would have the compliance requirements phased in over several years based on a company’s status as a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. This fact sheet on the proposed rules published by the SEC provides helpful tables (on page 3) detailing the phase-in periods contemplated by the proposed rules for companies with a calendar fiscal year, assuming the proposed rules were adopted as final with an effective date in December 2022.

Despite the uncertainty, it is certainly possible that the SEC could adopt final rules later this year with compliance dates as contemplated by the proposed rules, and companies therefore would be ill-advised to assume that they will have a longer ramp-up period than they would under the proposed rules and the assumption of a December 2022 effective date.

4. Understand the proposed rules and the disclosures they will require for your company based on its specific circumstances, including with regard to differences between what the company is disclosing now and what would be required by the proposed rules.

The proposed rules are highly prescriptive and are intended to produce consistent and comparable disclosures across the public-company spectrum. With limited exceptions (e.g., that smaller reporting companies would be exempted from the requirement to disclose Scope 3 emissions), all public companies will need to assess required disclosure under all provisions of the rules. That assessment, however, will need to be made in light of the company’s specific circumstances, and there will be categories of required disclosures that are very relevant to some industries or companies but of no or limited relevance to other industries or companies. Additionally, many companies have been voluntarily disclosing information that is similar to some of the information that may be required to be provided under the proposes rules, but there may be gaps between or differences in required disclosures and a company’s current practices.

As companies begin to digest the proposed rules, it will make sense for them to drill down on the specific types of disclosures they would need to make if the proposed rules were adopted as proposed. Questions that companies might ask themselves include the following:

Will we need to disclose Scope 3 emissions data based on materiality or having set targets or goals including Scope 3 emissions?
What, if anything, have we done with respect to the following topics such that disclosure regarding those topics would be required?
- Adoption of a transition plan
- Setting of climate-related goals or targets
- Use of carbon offsets or renewable energy credits in setting goals or targets
- Use of scenario analyses or other analytical tools in evaluating climate risk
- Use of an internal carbon price
  - Note that, with respect to goals or targets, the proposed rules refer to a company’s having “set” such goals or targets and not to its having publicly disclosed them. Similarly, with respect to all of these topics, it is not clear that the related disclosure would be triggered only by some level of formality or organizational scope in the adoption, setting or use of the applicable item. Companies therefore should assess the relevance of these topics broadly, including informal use or discussion within the organization.
What information that we are not currently disclosing would the proposed rules require us to disclose?
For information that we are currently disclosing, would the proposed rules require that information to be established, assembled or disclosed differently, or disclosed more expansively or granularly, from how we are doing it now? If so, how?
Which required disclosures might be particularly challenging for our company, such that they might merit special or prioritized focus?

5. Begin to evaluate existing systems and resources related to climate-related information and identify changes that will need to be made.

Companies in some industries, such as energy or manufacturing, likely already have systems in place to collect much of the data called for by the proposed rules, and many public companies have been publishing voluntary disclosures in the form of ESG reports for years. However, smaller companies in such industries may not currently have the resources necessary to devote to compliance with the new rules. Likewise, companies in non-GHG intensive industries, such as financial services, previously may not have had the need, or a more limited need, for such systems. And even those companies that are experienced in collecting and disclosing climate-related data and other information likely would, under the proposed rules, need to expand their systems to cover a much broader universe of information and ensure that controls and procedures meet standards for disclosures in SEC-filed documents and are appropriate for enhanced scrutiny and potential liability that will come with including such disclosures in SEC-filed documents. Companies may need to invest significantly in new personnel with appropriate expertise and in new technology, and they will need to expand their disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to cover new sets of information that are wide-ranging, voluminous and highly detailed. Accordingly, public companies should begin to assess their existing capabilities and identify the changes they would need to make to comply with proposed rules to ensure that the changes can be effected in time to comply with new rules.

Additionally, the climate-related risk disclosures contemplated by the proposed rules may require that companies devote significant resources to expanding the process by which they identify and assess climate-related risk. Further, the need for companies to evaluate climate-related risks to upstream and downstream – value chain – activities, and potentially to disclose Scope 3 emissions associated with those activities, may pose significant challenges and likely will require many companies to develop new processes to address disclosure requirements that relate to matters that are largely outside of the company’s control and access. These are areas that companies may want to focus on in the near term.

6. Evaluate needs and strategy for retaining third parties to assist with disclosures, including for attestation of GHG emissions data.

As noted above, for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers, the proposed rules would require attestation regarding Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions data by an independent third party meeting certain minimum qualifications, which may be a public accounting firm if it meets the minimum qualifications but need not be an accounting firm. The market for providing these attestation services is evolving and will continue to evolve as accounting firms and others develop their ability to provide these services. Some observers have raised concerns that the supply of emission-attestation services may not initially meet the demand for such services that the proposed rules would create. Companies may wish to begin thinking about their options for third-parties to handle the attestation, particularly large accelerated filers who could be subject to the attestation requirements as soon as in their 2024 annual reports filed in early 2025. Additionally, it is important for companies to have conversations around attestation ahead of their information gathering efforts to ensure that the disclosure information being developed and gathered will be sufficient for attestors to provide the required assurance.

In addition to attestation services, companies should consider their potential need for and access to other third-party advisors with the necessary expertise and experience, including attorneys, accountants/auditors and firms providing consulting and other services to assist companies with climate-related disclosures.

7. Consider whether the disclosures contemplated by the proposed rules warrant any changes to your current, planned or contemplated climate-related activities, such as setting or disclosing of climate-related goals or targets.

As noted above, the proposed rules contemplate detailed disclosures regarding several matters that may or may not be relevant to a particular company depending on things that the company may or may not have done in advance of the initial compliance date for the proposed rules. These include whether a company has:

adopted a climate transition plan,
set climate-related goals or targets,
included Scope 3 emissions in its goals or targets,
used carbon offsets or renewable energy credits in setting its goals or targets,
used scenario analyses or other analytical tools in assessing climate-related risk, or
used an internal carbon price.

Companies may wish to reassess their existing, planned or contemplated activities in these areas in view of the proposed rules. It may be the case that a company would want to modify its activities in one or more of these areas when viewed through the lens of what the company’s disclosures regarding such activities would look like under the proposed rules. For example, if your company is planning to set or announce new GHG emissions goals, should the company modify the goals as they relate to Scope 3 emissions or otherwise before doing so, or would it be preferable for the company to delay any such setting or announcement of goals until there is clarity on the content of final rules?

8. Determine whether to submit comments on the proposed rules.

The proposed rule release includes over 200 requests for comment. Comments are due by the later of 30 days after the date the proposing release is published in the Federal Register (which had not happened as of the date of this update) or May 20, 2022. (As noted above, it is possible that the comment period could be extended beyond that date, but, unless and until the SEC actually does that, parties desiring to submit comments should proceed with the expectation that they will need to submit them by the applicable current deadline.) Although the SEC will not agree with all comments received and may adopt final rules despite strong and widely-held opposing views reflected in the comments, the SEC and its staff will consider the comments received in adopting final rules and likely will make at least some changes to the proposed rules based on comments. If your company would like to have its voice heard on the proposed rules, you may consider doing so by submitting comments directly or through an industry association or similar group.

9. Monitor developments.

As noted above, we are in the early stages of the process through which the proposed rules could, in their current form or with changes, become final rules with which public companies actually would need to comply. In-house lawyers should continue to monitor developments and advise others in their organizations of such developments as appropriate so that preparations for compliance with new climate-related disclosure rules can be adjusted as necessary.

10. Don’t forget that climate-related disclosures may be required under existing SEC rules and interpretations.

With the anticipation of a massive new disclosure regime for climate-related matters and preparation for compliance with that regime, it might be easy to overlook that fact the existing SEC rules and interpretations may require climate-related disclosures in SEC filings, and the SEC staff may issue comments on climate-related disclosures, or the absence thereof, in a company’s SEC filings, as they did for a number companies in the fall of 2021 with respect to the companies’ 2020 annual reports on Form 10-K. Pending the adoption and implementation of final new rules, companies should continue to assess their disclosures in view of the SEC’s 2010 guidance on climate-related disclosures.

_______________________________________

1. Scope 1 emissions are direct GHG emissions from operations that are owned or controlled by a company. Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired energy that is consumed by a company’s operations. Scope 3 emissions are all indirect GHG emissions not otherwise included in a company’s Scope 2 emissions, which occur in the upstream and downstream activities of a company’s value chain.

Article By Charles H. Still Jr., Troy L. Harder, Travis L. Counts, Chase V. Edmunds.

For more about SEC disclosures, please visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

President Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Request Would Strengthen TSCA and Tackle PFAS Pollution

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress President Biden’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 28, 2022, press release, the budget makes critical investments, including:

Strengthening EPA’s Commitment and Ability to Implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Successfully: The budget provides $124 million and 449 full time equivalents (FTE) for TSCA efforts “to deliver on the promises made to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act.” According to the budget, “[t]hese resources will support EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluations and protective regulations in accordance with statutory timelines.”
Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that threaten the health and safety of communities across the United States. As part of the President’s commitment to tackling PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $126 million in FY 2023 for EPA to increase its understanding of human health and ecological effects of PFAS, restrict uses to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water, and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment. EPA states that it will continue to act on its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

PFAS Air Regulations Proposed By House

In the latest federal legislative move to try to force the EPA to take quicker action than contemplated by the agency’s PFAS Roadmap of 2021, a bill was recently introduced in the House that would require the EPA to set air emission limits for all PFAS under the Clean Air Act. PFAS air regulations are something that advocates concerned about PFAS pollution issues beyond just drinking water have advocated for in the past few years. There are barriers, though, to achieving the desired results even if the legislation passes. Nevertheless, the federal legislative activity underscores the need for all companies that are currently using PFAS in their manufacturing or industrial processes to understand the full scope of compliance needs when and if PFAS air regulations become a reality.

House Bill For PFAS Air Regulations

On March 17, 2022, a bipartisan group in the House introduced the “Prevent Release Of Toxics Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2022” (also known as the PROTECT Act of 2022 or HR 7142). The aim of the bill is to require the EPA to list all PFAS as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. If passed, the designation as HAPs would require the EPA to develop regulatory limits for the emission of PFAS into the air.

The proposed steps, however, go well beyond the EPA’s own plan for potential PFAS air regulations as detailed in the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap 2021. In the PFAS Roadmap, the EPA indicates that it commits to performing ongoing investigation to:

Identify sources of PFAS air emissions;
Develop and finalize monitoring approaches for measuring stack emissions and ambient concentrations of PFAS;
Develop information on cost-effective mitigation technologies; and
Increase understanding of the fate and transport of PFAS air emissions to assess their potential for impacting human health via contaminated groundwater and other media pathways.

The EPA committed to using this information and data in order to, by the Fall of 2022, “evaluate mitigation options”, which could include listing “certain PFAS” as HAPs. However, the EPA also indicated that it might use other regulatory or non-regulatory tools to achieve results similar to formal PFAS air regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The bill, therefore, would considerably accelerate the EPA’s process for potential HAPs, which in turn could result in legal challenges to any rushed HAPs, as the EPA would not have had the opportunity to collect all necessary data and evaluate the soundness of the science behind any HAP designation.

Impact On Business

Any designation of PFAS as HAPs under the Clean Air Act will of course immediately impact companies that are utilizing PFAS and emitting PFAS into the air. While it remains to be seen whether the PROTECT Act will pass, if it were to pass and the EPA’s HAP designations were to survive any legal challenges, the impacts on businesses would be significant. Companies would need to undertake extensive testing of air emissions to determine their risk of Clean Air Act violations, which will be complicated due to limitations on current technology to do this type of testing. Companies may also need to pivot their production practices to reduce or limit PFAS air emissions, which would add unplanned costs to balance sheets. Finally, companies may wish to explore substitutes for PFAS rather than navigate Clean Air Act regulatory compliance, which is a significant undertaking that takes time and money.

It is also worth noting that a designation as a HAP for any PFAS would also trigger significant regulatory challenges to businesses that might have nothing to do with air emissions. Any substance listed as a HAP under the Clean Air Act is automatically designated as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA (the Superfund law). Once a substance is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA, the EPA can force parties that it deems to be polluters to either cleanup the polluted site or reimburse the EPA for the full remediation of the contaminated site. Without a PFAS Superfund designation, the EPA can merely attribute blame to parties that it feels contributed to the pollution, but it has no authority to force the parties to remediate or pay costs. The designation also triggers considerable reporting requirements for companies. Currently, those reporting requirements with respect to PFAS do not exist, but they would apply to industries well beyond just PFAS manufacturers. Superfund site cleanup costs can be extensive, even as high as hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope of pollution at issue and the amount of territory involved in the site.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The Gensler SEC: What to Expect in 2022

Since Gary Gensler became chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in April 2021, his agency has signaled an active agenda that many expect will be aggressively enforced. Cornerstone Research recently brought together distinguished experts with SEC experience to share what they expect the SEC will focus on in 2022. The expert forum, “The Gensler SEC: Policy, Progress, and Problems,” featured Joseph Grundfest, a former commissioner of the SEC and currently serving as the W. A. Franke Professor of Law and Business at Stanford Law School; and Mary Jo White, senior chair, litigation partner, and leader of Debevoise & Plimpton’s Strategic Crisis Response and Solutions Group who previously served as chair of the SEC and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Moderated by Jennifer Marietta-Westberg of Cornerstone Research, the forum was held before an audience of attorneys and economists and explored the major regulatory and enforcement themes expected to take center stage in the coming year.

ESG Disclosures and Materiality

In its Unified Regulatory Agenda first released in June of last year, the SEC indicated that it will propose disclosure requirements in the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) space, particularly on climate-related risks and human capital management. However, as documented by the numerous comments received as a result of the SEC’s March 15, 2021, request for input on climate change disclosures, there is substantial debate as to whether these disclosures must, or should, require disclosure only of material information. During the expert forum, Grundfest and White agreed that ESG disclosures should call for material information only. However, they have different predictions on whether ESG disclosures actually will be qualified by a materiality requirement.

White emphasized that materiality is a legal touchstone in securities laws. “If the SEC strays far from materiality, the risk is that a rule gets overturned,” she said. “Not every single rule needs to satisfy the materiality requirement, but it would be a mistake for the SEC not to explain what its basis for materiality is in this space.”

Grundfest added, “There is a spectrum of ESG issues, and while some are within the SEC’s traditional purview, others are new and further away from it. For example, to better ensure robust greenhouse emissions disclosure, the Environmental Protection Agency should be the one to require disclosure rules that would not be overturned.”

Gensler has indicated that investors want ESG disclosures in order to make investment and voting decisions. For instance, in his remarks before the Principles for Responsible Investment in July 2021, Gensler stated that “[i]nvestors are looking for consistent, comparable, and decision-useful disclosures so they can put their money in companies that fit their needs.” White predicts that some but not all ESG disclosure requirements in the proposed rules the SEC is working on will call for material information.

Grundfest, however, believes that the rules the SEC eventually adopts will require disclosure only of material information. “The SEC’s proposal on ESG disclosures will ask for everything, from the moon to the stars,” he said. “But public comments will sober the rules. The SEC staff will take into account the Supreme Court standard and the Chevron risk. It will settle on adopting materiality-based disclosure rules.”

There is also debate over the potential definition of materiality in the context of any proposed ESG disclosures. The panelists were asked whether the fact that large institutional investors assert various forms of ESG information are important to their investment decisions is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the information is material. Neither White nor Grundfest believes the Supreme Court as currently composed would accept this argument, but they differ on the reasons.

Grundfest believes the Supreme Court will stick with its approach of a hypothetical reasonable investor. “The fact that these institutional investors ask for this information doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s material,” he said. “If the SEC wants to have something done in this space, it has to work within the law.”

White said an important aspect of the rule will be the economic analysis, though she, too, does not think materiality can be “decided by an opinion poll among institutional investors.” For example, a shareholder proposal requesting certain information that has not received support does not necessarily make the information immaterial. “The Supreme Court will be tough on the survey approach,” she said.

Digital Assets and Crypto Exchanges

In several statements and testimonies, Gensler has declared the need for robust enforcement and better investor protection in the markets for digital currencies. He has publicly called the cryptocurrency space “a Wild West.” In addition to bringing enforcement actions against token issuers and other market participants on the theory that the tokens constitute securities, the SEC under his leadership has brought enforcement actions against at least one unregistered digital asset exchange on the theory that the exchange traded securities and should therefore register as securities exchange.

“The crypto space is the SEC’s most problematic area,” Grundfest said. “Franz Kafka’s most famous novel is The Trial. It’s about a person arrested and prosecuted for a crime that is never explained based on evidence that he never sees. Some recent SEC enforcement proceedings make me wonder whether Kafka is actually still alive and well, and working deep in the bowels of the SEC’s Enforcement Division.” In support of this literary reference, Professor Grundfest noted that, in bringing enforcement actions against crypto exchanges alleging that they traded tokens that were unregistered securities, the SEC never specified which tokens traded on these exchanges were securities. “This is almost beyond regulation by enforcement. It’s regulation by FUD—fear, uncertainty, and doubt,” Grundfest said.

White predicted that, of the 311 active crypto exchanges listed by CoinMarketCap as of December 1, 2021, the SEC will bring cases against at least four in the coming year.

Gensler has publicly argued for bringing the cryptocurrency-related industry under his agency’s oversight. “We need additional congressional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks,” he said in August at the Aspen Security Forum. But neither White nor Grundfest believes the current Congress will enact legislation giving the SEC authority to regulate crypto transactions that do not meet the definition of an investment contract under the Howey test.

In November 2021, a federal jury in Audet v. Fraser at the District Court of Connecticut decided that certain cryptocurrency products that investors purchased were not securities under Howey. Neither Grundfest nor White believes this finding will cause the SEC to become more cautious about asserting that some forms of crypto are securities.

“One jury verdict is hardly a precedent,” White said. “The facts of the case didn’t have many of the nuances under Howey that other cases have. It will not deter the SEC.”

The panelists agreed that SEC enforcement activity will be aggressive in the crypto space. A report by Cornerstone Research, titled SEC Cryptocurrency Enforcement: 2021 Update, found that, under the new administration, the SEC has continued its role as one of the main regulators in the cryptocurrency space. In 2021, the SEC brought 20 enforcement actions against digital asset market participants, including first-of-their-kind actions against a crypto lending platform, an unregistered digital asset exchange, and a decentralized finance (DeFi) lender.

Proxy Voting

With the 2022 proxy season on the horizon, people will be watching the SEC closely, as Gensler’s Commission recently adopted new rules for universal proxy cards, and it has revisited amendments adopted under the former chair of the SEC, Jay Clayton.

Last November, the SEC adopted universal proxy rules that now allow shareholders to vote for their preferred mix of board candidates in contested elections, similar to voting in person. These rules would put investors voting in person and by proxy on equal footing. “Universal proxy was proposed at the time when I was the chair of the SEC, and the logic for the rule is overpowering,” White said. “In adoption, some commissioners had reservations on the thresholds of voting power a dissident would be required to solicit, but voted in favor anyway based on its logic. It was a 4 to 1 vote.”

Grundfest and White expect the number of proxy contests that proceed to a vote will go up as a result. From 2019 to 2020, the incidence of proxy contests increased from 6 to 13. Looking ahead to the coming year, Grundfest predicts the rule change will increase the incidence of proxy contests by somewhere between 50% and 100%. White predicts a more modest increase of about 50%.

Regarding rules on proxy voting advice, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14L (CF) last November to address Rule 14a-8(i)(7), which permits exclusion of a shareholder proposal that “deals with a matter relating to the company’s ordinary business operations.”

The bulletin puts forth a new Staff position that now denies no-action relief to registrants seeking to exclude shareholder proposals that transcend the company’s day-to-day business matters. “This exception is essential for preserving shareholders’ right to bring important issues before other shareholders by means of the company’s proxy statement, while also recognizing the board’s authority over most day-to-day business matters,” the bulletin said.

Both White and Grundfest believe a modest number of issuers will go to court in the 2022 proxy season seeking to exclude Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposals as “transcending” day-to-day operations. “I think companies will challenge shareholder proposals in court but not a lot,” White said. “It depends on the shareholder proposal.”

Grundfest believes any such cases would be driven as much by CEOs as by any other factor. “Companies may challenge a shareholder proposal in court if they have a CEO who is offended by a certain proposal or for First Amendment reasons,” he said. Grundfest cited a hypothetical example of a software company in Texas with a shareholder proposal on gun rights or abortion rights, which have nothing to do with the cybersecurity software the company produces. “It would be hard to force a company to put forth a politically charged proposal that is not related to that company’s business,” he said. “If it’s a First Amendment right, the company will go to court.”

Article By Jennifer Marietta-Westberg and Simona Mola of Cornerstone Research

For more SEC and securities legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

EV Buses: Arriving Now and Here to Stay

In the words of Miss Frizzle, “Okay bus—do your stuff!”¹ A favorable regulatory environment, direct subsidy, private investment, and customer demand are driving an acceleration in electric vehicle (EV) bus adoption and the lane of busiest traffic is filling with school buses. The United States has over 480,000 school buses, but currently, less than one percent are EVs. Industry watchers expect that EV buses will eventually become the leading mode for student transportation. School districts and municipalities are embracing EV buses because they are perceived as cleaner, requiring less maintenance, and predicted to operate more reliably than current fossil fuel consuming alternatives. EV bus technology has improved in recent years, with today’s models performing better in cold weather than their predecessors, with increased ranges on a single charge, and requiring very little special training for drivers.² Moreover, EV buses can serve as components in micro-grid developments (more on that in a future post).

The Investment Incline

Even if the expected operational advantages of EV buses deliver, the upfront cost to purchase vehicles or to retrofit existing fleets remains an obstacle to expansion. New EV buses price out significantly more than traditional diesel buses and also require accompanying new infrastructure, such as charging stations. Retrofitting drive systems in existing buses comparatively reduces some of that cost, but also requires significant investment.³

To detour around these financial obstacles, federal, state, and local governments have made funding available to encourage the transition to EV buses.⁴ In addition to such policy-based subsidies, private investment from both financial and strategic quarters has increased. Market participants who take advantage of such funding earlier than their competitors have a forward seat to position themselves as leaders.

You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!

Government funding incentives for electrification are available for new EV buses and for repowering existing vehicles.⁵ Notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $5 billion over five years to replace existing diesel buses with EV buses. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act provided $18.7 million in rebates for fiscal year 2021 through an ongoing program.

In 2021, New York City announced its commitment to transition school buses to electric by 2035. Toward that goal, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program provides vouchers to eligible fleets towards electric conversions and covers up to 80% of those associated costs.⁶ California’s School Bus Replacement Program had already set aside over $94 million, available to districts, counties, and joint power authorities, to support replacing diesel buses with EVs, and the state’s proposed budget for 2022-23 includes a $1.5 billion grant program to support purchase of EV buses and charging stations.

While substantial growth in EV bus sales will continue in the years ahead, it will be important to keep an eye out for renewal, increase or sunset of these significant subsidies.

Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters

The U.S is a leader in EV school bus production: two of the largest manufacturers, Blue Bird and Thomas Built (part of Daimler Truck North America), are located domestically, and Lion Electric (based in Canada) expects to begin delivering vehicles from a large facility in northern Illinois during the second half of 2022. GM has teamed up with Lighting eMotors on a medium duty truck platform project that includes models prominent in many fleets, and Ford’s Super Duty lines of vehicles (which provide the platform for numerous vans and shuttle vehicles) pop up in its promotion of a broader electric future. Navistar’s IC Bus now features an electric version of its flagship CE series.

Additionally, companies are looking to a turn-key approach to deliver complete energy ecosystems, encompassing vehicles, charging infrastructure, financing, operations, maintenance, and energy optimization. In 2021, Highland Electric Transportation raised $253 million from Vision Ridge Partners, Fontinalis Partners (co-founded by Bill Ford) and existing investors to help accelerate its growth, premised on a turn-key fleet approach.⁷

Retrofitting is also on the move. SEA Electric (SEA), a provider of electric commercial vehicles, recently partnered with Midwest Transit Equipment (MTE) to convert 10,000 existing school buses to EVs over the next five years.⁸ MTE will provide the frame for the school uses and SEA will provide its SEA-drive propulsion system to convert the buses to EV.⁹ In a major local project, Logan Bus Company announced its collaboration with AMPLY Power and Unique Electric Solutions (UES) to deploy New York City’s first Type-C (conventional) school bus.¹⁰

Industry followers should expect further collaborations, because simplifying the route to adopting an EV fleet makes it more likely EV products will reach customers.

Opportunities Going Forward

Over the long haul, EV buses should do well. Scaling up investments and competition on the production side should facilitate making fleet modernization more affordable for school districts while supporting profit margins for manufacturers. EVs aren’t leaving town, so manufacturers, fleet operators, school districts and municipalities will either get on board or risk being left at the curb.

Article By Michael J. Small and Samantha Ruppenthal at Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

¹https://shop.scholastic.com/parent-ecommerce/series-and-characters/magic-school-bus.html

²https://www.busboss.com/blog/having-an-electric-school-bus-fleet-is-easier-than-many-people-think

³https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/570326-electric-school-bus-investments-could-drive-us-vehicle

⁴https://info.burnsmcd.com/white-paper/electrifying-the-nations-mass-transit-bus-fleets

⁵https://stnonline.com/partner-updates/electric-repower-the-cheaper-faster-and-easier-path-to-electric-buses/

⁶https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/296-21/recovery-all-us-mayor-de-blasio-commits-100-electric-school-bus-fleet-2035

⁷https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-02-16/highland-electric-transportation-raises-253-million-from-vision-ridge-partners-fontinalis-partners-and-existing-investors

⁸https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/07/sea-electric-to-convert-10k-us-school-buses/#:~:text=SEA%20Electric%20and%20Midwest%20Transit,become%20purely%20electric%20school%20buses.

⁹ Id.

¹⁰https://stnonline.com/news/new-york-city-deploys-first-type-c-electric-school-bus/

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit Shows the Danger of ESG Marketing

For the second time in less than a month, L’Oreal finds itself embroiled in a PFAS lawsuit related to its mascara products. The L’Oreal PFAS lawsuit was filed in the New York federal court on March 9, 2022. Cosmetics and PFAS is a topic that saw increased scrutiny from the scientific community, legislature, and the media in 2021. As we predicted in early 2021, the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry, and our prediction was that the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits. In less than three months, four industry giants – Shiseido, CoverGirl, L’Oreal and Burt’s Bees – were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS content in some of the companies’ products. The industry, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical with niche interest in cosmetics companies must pay careful attention to the Burt’s Bees lawsuit and the increasing trend of lawsuits targeting the industry.