ESG newsletter - October 2026

Webinar recording: Preparing for the EU CSDDD, EU Forced Labour Regulation and changes to UK modern slavery statements

We held a webinar on 29 September 2026 to discuss how businesses can start preparing for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the EU Forced Labour Regulation and proposed changes to the UK Modern Slavery Act. 

Click here for the webinar recording and here for the slides. 

For more information on these regimes, see our materials:

• ESG Quick Guide: EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD / CS3D)
• EU CSDDD: Top 5 things you need to know: podcast
• EU CSDDD: Key dates
• EU: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD/CS3D) Transposition Tracker
• ESG Quick Guide: EU Forced Labour Regulation
• EU Forced Labour Regulation: Top 5 things you need to know: podcast
• EU Forced Labour Regulation: Key dates
• ESG Quick Guide: UK Modern Slavery Act 2015: modern slavery statements

EU CSRD: Revised ESRS and voluntary reporting standard published in Official Journal of the EU

The EU has published the final measures completing the Omnibus I simplification package for sustainability reporting: a revised and streamlined set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS); and a new voluntary reporting standard for companies outside the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The revised ESRS will apply to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027, although companies already subject to CSRD reporting in FY2026 can choose to use the existing standards, the existing standards with certain reliefs, or the revised ESRS, provided they disclose which framework they have applied. The voluntary standard became available from 24 September 2026, while a new value-chain cap from 2027 limits the sustainability information that large reporting companies can request from smaller suppliers with 1,000 employees or fewer for CSRD reporting purposes. For more information, see our blog post. 

EU: CSRD: EFRAG consults on draft XBRL taxonomy for revised ESRS

On 17 September 2026, EFRAG released draft XBRL Taxonomy for the revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and launched a public consultation, which is open until 11 November 2026. The Draft XBRL Taxonomy sets out the technical framework needed to produce ESRS disclosures in machine-readable form. It tracks the Draft List of Datapoints for the revised ESRS which EFRAG released on 28 August 2026 for a fatal-flaw review (open until 23 October 2026). EFRAG intends to hand over the final XBRL Taxonomy to ESMA and the Commission in November 2026, with a view to formal submission by the end of the year. For more information, see our blog post. 

UK: Government consults on modernising corporate reporting

On 7 September 2026,  the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) published the government’s long promised consultation on Modernising Corporate Reporting.  The consultation proposes a major simplification of the current regime, replacing many detailed and overlapping reporting requirements with a more principles-based framework focused on information that is financially material and useful to investors and creditors. Key sustainability-related proposals include streamlining strategic reports, replacing prescriptive non-financial reporting topics with five broad baseline reporting areas, reviewing company size thresholds and exemptions, retaining climate-related financial disclosures (for the time being until that review is complete) while considering how the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) should be incorporated in the Companies Act, and allowing companies flexibility over the location of sustainability information. The consultation closes on 30 November 2026 and the government intends to publish a consultation outcome by the end of May 2027. For more information, see our blog post.

UK SRS: FCA confirms comply or explain approach for listed company climate and other sustainability disclosures

The FCA has finalised the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) for listed companies and has dropped the originally proposed mandatory climate reporting model in favour of a "comply or explain" approach for both climate and other sustainability reporting. But the FCA has emphasised that "explain" is not meant to be an off-switch — material sustainability risks that count as principal risks will still have to be disclosed. The new rules will replace the FCA's existing TCFD-aligned climate disclosure regime under the Listing Rules. The rules will start applying to accounting periods starting on 1 January 2027 for climate reporting, 1 January 2028 for Scope 3 reporting and 1 January 2029 for other sustainability (non-climate) reporting. For more information, see our blog post.

UK: FCA publishes final rules simplifying TCFD-aligned product level reporting for asset managers 

EU: Platform on Sustainable Finance responds to Commission's consultation on Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act

EU: Commission's State of the European Union 2026 address: sustainability takeaways

On 16 September 2026, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered the State of the European Union address. This is the Commission President’s annual speech to the European Parliament, which is used to set out the Commission’s political priorities for the year ahead. The Commission President identified climate change and AI as the “tipping points of our time”.  She reaffirmed the EU’s climate targets, placed greater emphasis on climate adaptation and resilience, and outlined measures on clean energy, critical raw materials, simplification, and AI. However, the legislative detail will be set out in the Commission’s Work Programme which is expected to be published on 20 October 2026. For more information, see our blog post. 

EU: Commission adopts data centre sustainability rating scheme

On 21 September 2026, the European Commission adopted a Delegated Regulation establishing a mandatory EU-wide sustainability rating scheme and electronic label for data centres (see Commission press release). The Delegated Regulation supplements the Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/1791) and amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1364. The Regulation introduces a mandatory A-to-G label for data centres with an installed information technology power demand of at least 500 kW, grading them on Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) and Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) and displaying further indicators on the sourcing of energy, contribution to new energy asset capacity, flexibility to the grid and waste-heat reuse readiness. For more information, see our previous blog post on the July 2026 draft of the Regulation. Compared with the July 2026 draft, the adopted text contains some technical adjustments but does not introduce substantial changes. The Delegated Regulation is now subject to a two-month scrutiny period (extendable by a further two months) by the European Parliament and the Council before entering into force. The co-legislators have the right to object to the Delegated Regulation but cannot amend the text. The first sustainability labels for individual data centres are expected in 2027.  A first review of the scheme is foreseen by end-2028 to assess its effectiveness and possible improvements, if necessary. 

EU: Public Procurement Act: ESG aspects of the Commission's proposal 

On 9 September 2026, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on public contracts and concessions (the Public Procurement Act). The Public Procurement Act would repeal Directive 2014/23/EU (concessions), Directive 2014/24/EU (public procurement) and Directive 2014/25/EU (utilities) and consolidate them into a single, directly applicable Regulation. The Commission aims to make public procurement simpler, more flexible, and more effective. 

Key ESG aspects of the Commission's proposal include:

• The proposal makes the best price-quality ratio the default award method and sets a minimum quality weighting of 30 per cent of total points, rising to 50 per cent for labour-intensive contracts, subject to a narrow "comply or explain" mechanism. Quality is defined as a non-exhaustive list that expressly includes environmental and climate considerations, social considerations, innovation, security and resilience. At the point of award, ESG considerations therefore have a guaranteed and quantifiable share of the score.
• "Green public procurement" (GPP) will be a defined legal concept, tied to six environmental objectives (climate mitigation, climate adaptation, water, circular economy, pollution and biodiversity). The proposal then empowers the Commission to make specific green procurement requirements mandatory by delegated act for products and technologies covered by eight EU acts listed in Annex VII, including the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Batteries Regulation and the Construction Products Regulation. Mere compliance with existing minimum environmental requirements does not qualify as GPP.

The proposal will now need to be negotiated by the European Parliament and Council. Once adopted, the Regulation will apply directly in all Member States, with a two-year deferral between entry into force and application.  For more information, see the Commission's press release, Q&A and Factsheet.

Webinar recording: Preparing for the EU CSDDD, EU Forced Labour Regulation and changes to UK modern slavery statements

We held a webinar on 29 September 2026 to discuss how businesses can start preparing for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the EU Forced Labour Regulation and proposed changes to the UK Modern Slavery Act. 

Click here for the webinar recording and here for the slides. 

For more information on these regimes, see our materials:

• ESG Quick Guide: EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD / CS3D)
• EU CSDDD: Top 5 things you need to know: podcast
• EU CSDDD: Key dates
• EU: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD/CS3D) Transposition Tracker
• ESG Quick Guide: EU Forced Labour Regulation
• EU Forced Labour Regulation: Top 5 things you need to know: podcast
• EU Forced Labour Regulation: Key dates
• ESG Quick Guide: UK Modern Slavery Act 2015: modern slavery statements

EU Forced Labour Regulation: Final version of guidelines published in Official Journal of the EU 

The final version of the European Commission’s guidelines on the EU Forced Labour Regulation were published in the Official Journal of the EU on 3 September 2026. No changes were made from the version originally published on 30 June 2026. See our previous blog post for more information.

EU: Delegated Act amending scope of Deforestation Regulation published in Official Journal of the EU 

On 13 July 2026, the Commission adopted a Delegated Regulation amending Annex I to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) (for more information, see our earlier blog post). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/2102 was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 17 September 2026.  Several products were removed from Annex I, and thus the Regulation’s scope, including cattle hides, skins and leather, retreaded tyres, soybean seeds for sowing, certain rubber products, conveyor and transmission belts, and aircraft and motor vehicle seats. The Delegated Regulation added soluble coffee, certain palm oil derivatives, frozen cattle tongues, and certain soap products to Annex I, from 30 December 2027. The amendments also introduced targeted exclusions and clarifications for relevant commodities and certain categories of products, including the scope of commodities covered, samples used for testing and analysis, waste, used or second-hand products, packing materials and containers, marketing and information materials, and products used in the manufacture of medicinal products. 

New Quick Guides on EU and UK greenwashing regimes

We have published a new Quick Guide on the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo). The Directive, which bolsters EU rules on making green claims and the use of sustainability labels, started applying on 27 September 2026. The Quick Guide links to the revised Commission Q&As which was published in September. 

We have also published a new Quick Guide on the UK greenwashing rules for corporates and financial sector, which covers the regimes applied by the CMA, ASA and other rules which could be used in respect of misleading green claims.

New Zealand introduces statutory bar on climate change-related torts

New Zealand adopted a new Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act 2026 which creates a broad statutory bar on tort claims for climate change damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, including direct and indirect (Scope 3) emissions, applying even to ongoing cases such as Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd, with no compensation available to claimants. While the legislation is intended to provide legal certainty for businesses and preserve New Zealand’s existing climate regulatory framework, it has sparked controversy, faces legal and political challenges, and forms part of a wider international debate over the future role of climate litigation. For more information, see our blog post. 

Global Advisory Alliance coordinates initiative on transparency in defence and dual-use sectors

Investors are being asked to take more nuanced views on defence and dual-use exposure. However, the information available to them has not kept pace. Concerns range from human rights and export controls to safeguards around AI and other dual-use technologies. A new collaborative engagement initiative is being launched in response. It is backed by institutional investors representing around €140 billion in assets. Coordination sits with the Global Advisory Alliance (GAA), a network of independent advisory firms. Participating investors will engage with selected European companies and ESG data providers. The engagement will focus on defence and dual-use revenue disclosure, human rights due diligence, export and end-use controls, AI safeguards, and the quality of ESG data. Progress will be tracked against a KPI and an outcomes framework will be  developed with the initial investor group. The GAA is still in discussions with further investors. Subject to sufficient support, the first engagement phase is expected later this year. 

The initiative runs alongside a separate project, the Guidance for Responsible Investment in Defence (GRID), which is a draft framework to help investors navigate defence-related investments. It covers screening, due diligence, controversies, engagement and client communications, human rights and anti-bribery. Consultation on the draft closed at the end of August 2026, and a final launch is being explored for November 2026. 

Hong Kong SAR: HKMA consults on Phase 2B of the Hong Kong Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance

On 7 September 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) launched a public consultation on the Phase 2B prototype of the Hong Kong Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance (the Hong Kong Taxonomy). 

Building on Phase 2A published in January 2026, the prototype adds 10 new economic activities across transportation, manufacturing and waste management, taking the total to 39 activities. 

Phase 2B introduces transition pathways for hard-to-abate sectors such as iron and steel and air transport. Phase 2B also adds key enabling technologies that can support the development of other decarbonisation applications, such as the manufacture and recycling of batteries, and the manufacture of low-carbon technologies.

For climate change adaptation, Phase 2B further expands on adaptation-related measures and introduces a “process-based approach” (PBA) to address the location- and context-specific nature of adaptation. The PBA five-step framework sets out a process for identifying, designing, implementing, and monitoring adaptation activities and is designed to confirm an economic activity’s substantial contribution to climate change adaptation while managing maladaptation and Do No Significant Harm risks. Phase 2B also introduces 24 adaptation measures (including 11 whitelist measures and 13 non-whitelist measures), focused initially on shoreline protection and flood management. 

The Hong Kong Taxonomy remains voluntary, but the HKMA has signalled that it will may consider integration of the framework into its supervisory policy in the future. The consultation closes on 7 October 2026. 

Hong Kong SAR: HKMA issues Supervisory Policy Manual (SPM) module on transition planning

On 22 September 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued a circular attaching as annex 1 a new Supervisory Policy Manual (SPM) module GS-2 on Transition Planning (the GS-2). GS-2 supplements the existing GS-1 Climate Risk Management module. The primary objective of GS-2 is for authorised institutions to establish a robust and proportionate transition planning process to manage climate-related risks and opportunities arising from the transition to net zero, covering both transition and physical climate risks. For more information on the key elements of GS-2, see our blog post.  

Hong Kong SAR’s first Five-Year Plan – sustainability aspects

On 16 September 2026, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive announced the first Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2026–2030) and 2026 Policy Address. Green and sustainability aspects included (among others), to increase the share of zero-carbon energy in the fuel mix for electricity generation from around 25% at present to between 60% and 70% by 2035, ultimately achieving net-zero electricity generation by 2050; facilitate the development of the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry; and continue to promote the development of hydrogen energy by advancing hydrogen trial projects in areas such as transport and power generation at construction sites. Measures for further expanding sustainable finance included achieving full adoption of the IFRS’ ISSB standards by large publicly accountable entities by 2028; HKEX to introduce a “Green Equity Designation Scheme” to raise the market profile of eligible green securities issuers; HKMA to explore new application scenarios for the Hong Kong Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance; and HKEX's Core Climate and the Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency to explore Hong Kong’s participation in cross-boundary carbon trading.

Hong Kong SAR: Green Accelerator launched to unlock private capital for green projects

On 7 September 2026, the Green Accelerator was launched which is a non-profit platform designed to address the “bankability gap” preventing viable green projects in developing countries from securing investment. The Green Accelerator will use philanthropic capital to support project design and preparation, as well as providing technical assistance and capacity building. Its goal is to transform proven green technologies into portfolios of scalable, bankable projects that meet the investment criteria of multilateral development banks, sovereign wealth funds, and international commercial banks.  The focus areas will include energy transition, sustainable food system, circular economy, as well as water and climate resilience. Founding members include Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); GenZero; the Hong Kong Green Technology Innovation Center Limited (HKGTi); the Institute of Finance and Sustainability (IFS); the Silk Road Fund (SRF); HSBC; and the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL).

Singapore’s sustainable aviation fuel levy delayed for cargo flights

As announced previously on 10 November 2025, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) will start the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Levy for all “origin-destination” passengers and general and business aviation flights departing Singapore from 1 January 2027, for tickets or services sold from 1 October 2026 (see our December 2025 edition of the ESG newsletter). The implementation of the SAF Levy for air cargo shipments has been deferred by one year, to apply to services sold from 1 October 2027 for flights departing Singapore from 1 January 2028. The SAF Levy is designed to fund the purchase of SAF in support of Singapore’s aviation decarbonisation targets (see CAAS’ press release).

Monetary Authority of Singapore and People’s Bank of China strengthen cooperation in transition and adaptation finance

On 17 September 2026, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the People's Bank of China held the 4th annual Singapore-China Green Finance Taskforce meeting in Nanning, reaffirming both jurisdictions’ commitment to cooperation in sustainable finance and to explore emerging areas of interest. There were discussions on joint initiatives including expanding collaboration on taxonomy interoperability, encouraging the issuance of green panda bonds, and leveraging technology to facilitate sustainable financing solutions. The meeting also discussed emerging areas of interest, including biodiversity credits, insurance solutions for climate resilience and adaptation and carbon markets. 

Singapore tables Digital Infrastructure Bill: new licensing regimes for data centres and cloud services providers 

On 8 September 2026, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) introduced the Digital Infrastructure Bill (the Bill) for First Reading in Parliament, following a public consultation in July 2026 on the proposed legislation. The Bill will be debated at a future Parliament sitting, with the Second Reading tentatively scheduled for October. ​The Bill establishes two new licensing regimes to strengthen (a) the security and resilience of major cloud services and data centres (DCs), and (b) the environmental sustainability of DC operations in Singapore. For more information on the sustainability aspects of the Bill, see our September edition of the ESG newsletter and MDDI news release. 

Mainland China issues guidelines for Chinese automotive companies operating overseas

On 24 August 2026, China’s Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the Guidelines on Overseas Competitive Conduct and Compliance Development for the Automotive Industry (the Guidelines), encouraging compliance with laws of host jurisdictions, including competition, labour and environmental requirements. The Guidelines cover both overseas marketing conduct and broader compliance areas such as workplace safety, quality management, data security and intellectual property protection. They reflect the growing internationalisation of Chinese automotive manufacturers and China's alignment with international expectations on responsible business conduct.

Mainland China publishes national standard for monitoring methane emissions

On 28 August 2026, the Standardisation Administration of China published a recommended national standard for monitoring methane emissions from the onshore oil and gas industry. The standard is set to take effect on 1 January 2027. This is the first standard to establish an integrated, traceable methane emissions monitoring system spanning the entire oil and gas production chain. It sets requirements across key areas, including how monitoring levels are classified, which methods are selected, how equipment is chosen and calibrated, and how data quality is controlled. By providing a unified technical basis for domestic methane control, the standard also offers a significant reference point for global efforts to curb methane emissions in the industry. It supports national energy security and the sector's transition to greener, lower-carbon operations.

Indonesia Stock Exchange launches IDX Green Equity Designation

On 28 August 2026, the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) launched the IDX Green Equity Designation, a new market label designed to help investors identify listed companies that make a measurable contribution to green economic activities or to the transition process (see IDX’s press release). The designation forms part of a broader push across ASEAN capital markets to develop transparent, comparable identifiers for issuers with credible green or transition credentials, and complements sustainability disclosure requirements being rolled out in Indonesia.

Indonesia issues human rights due diligence guidelines for businesses

Indonesia’s Ministry of Human Rights, together with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Indonesia, launched the Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Guidelines for Businesses (the Guidelines). The Guidelines adapt the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct to the Indonesian legal and business context, and set out a six-step HRDD process covering thirteen priority human rights issues. Rather than a compliance checklist, the Guidelines encourage a risk-based approach and are designed to help companies prepare for a forthcoming regulatory framework that is expected to gradually introduce mandatory HRDD in Indonesia.

Thailand: SEC amends regulations to support the issuance of transition bonds and Thailand amber bonds 

On 8 September 2026, Thailand's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued amended regulations to support the issuance and offering of transition bonds and Thailand amber bonds, as well as to enhance disclosure requirements for ESG bonds. This follows an SEC consultation in July 2026 (see our September edition of the ESG newsletter) and in April 2026 (see our May edition of the ESG newsletter). The SEC has expanded the fee waiver scheme for application for approval fees and filing fees of ESG bonds to also cover transition bonds and Thailand amber bonds until 31 May 2028 to encourage fundraising. The SEC has issued nine related notifications, which have been published in the Royal Gazette and have been in effect since 16 September 2026. 

Federal Agency Actions

• On 29 September 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accepted PJM Interconnection's proposed one-time Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP) (Docket No. ER26-3380-000)—designed to address the 6,831 MW capacity shortfall from the 2028/2029 Base Residual Auction through up to 15-year commitments for new eligible capacity resources at a $555/MW-day maximum willingness-to-pay cap—but suspended implementation for five months, subject to refund and further proceedings, to permit review of three issues it identified as potentially unjust and unreasonable, including allocation of RBP costs. PJM pulled its scheduled 30 September 2026 opening of the RBP in response.

• On 28 September 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its final “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule III,” revising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years (MY) 2022 through 2031. The final rule “resets” the more stringent CAFE standards NHTSA issued in 2024 and, per NHTSA, brings the program into compliance with statutory requirements by no longer considering alternative fuel technologies such as electric vehicles when setting maximum-feasible standards. NHTSA projects the amended standards will correspond to an industry fleet-wide average of approximately 34.9 miles per gallon by MY 2031, compared with roughly 30.1 mpg for MY 2024. The final rule also eliminates the CAFE inter-manufacturer credit trading program beginning in MY 2028 and, beginning in MY 2030, amends the light-duty vehicle fleet classification system in a manner NHTSA projects will shift the current fleet mix from approximately 70% light trucks and 30% passenger cars to approximately 70% passenger cars and 30% light trucks.

• On 22 September 2026, a coalition of eight Northeast states led by New York filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine and separately sued in the Eastern District of New York challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) agreements to pay two wind developers a combined approximately $1.4 billion from the federal Judgment Fund in exchange for the surrender of four offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maine. Separately, California filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging DOI’s agreement to pay one of the developers approximately $111 million to abandon its lease off the California coast. All three actions bring claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Judgment Fund Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking vacatur of the settlement agreements and restoration of the leases. These suits extend a pattern of litigation by several of the same states against DOI’s use of Judgment Fund payments to induce offshore wind developers to surrender their leases.

• On 16 September 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed, in two separate releases, to rescind Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to modernize the proxy solicitation process. The first release would rescind the federal shareholder-proposal rule in its entirety as exceeding the Commission’s statutory authority and no longer supported by its original justifications, leaving the role of shareholder proposals to state law and, where permitted, each company’s governing documents; it would also amend Rule 14a-4(c) to expand companies’ discretionary voting authority over excluded proposals. The second release would eliminate the annual-report delivery requirement, the incorporation-by-reference delivery deadline, and the Notice of Exempt Solicitation, and shorten the minimum broker search period from 20 to five business days. Both proposals carry a 60-day comment period following Federal Register publication. Because Rule 14a-8 has for decades been the primary vehicle for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) proposals at U.S. public companies, its rescission would eliminate the federal mechanism driving much recent ESG shareholder engagement, shifting that role to state law and company governing documents. For more information, see our client alert on the SEC’s proposed rescission of Rule 14a-8 and proxy solicitation reforms.

• On 14 September 2026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin signed a final rule partially repealing the Biden-era 2024 greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, alongside a parallel supplemental proposal. The final rule (effective 16 November 2026) rescinds the emission guidelines for existing coal-fired steam units and the carbon-capture-based standards for coal units undertaking a large modification and for new baseload combustion turbines, while leaving the 2024 efficiency-based first-phase standards for new combustion turbines in place. The supplemental proposal (comments due 2 November 2026) would rescind EPA’s 2015 and 2024 greenhouse gas findings for power plants and repeal the remaining associated standards, on the ground that Clean Air Act §111 does not authorize EPA to regulate power-plant emissions in response to global climate change concerns. Three days later, on 17 September 2026, a coalition of environmental and public health organizations filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the final rule, arguing that the repeal without a replacement abdicates EPA’s Clean Air Act obligations and defies Supreme Court precedent requiring EPA to address greenhouse gas pollution from the largest industrial source in the country.

• On 11 September 2026, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed a broad, risk-informed overhaul of its power reactor licensing and oversight regulations, aligning existing plant rules with the 10 C.F.R. Part 53 framework for advanced reactors. The proposal implements Executive Order 14300, which directs the NRC to rewrite its regulations and guidance within 18 months and to impose 18-month caps on new-reactor licensing decisions and 12-month caps on license renewals. The proposal follows earlier NRC rulemakings narrowing the scope of environmental reviews under 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and revising radiation protection standards under Part 20, and a forthcoming regulatory framework for microreactors has been identified as a further planned initiative. Speaking on the sidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference on 15 September 2026, the NRC Chairman confirmed that the reform effort will continue “well into next year,” with final rules expected to publish in the Federal Register through late 2026 and 2027.

• On 9 September 2026, the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers) published in the Federal Register (91 FR 57284) a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)—announced by the agencies on 4 September 2026—seeking comment on additional regulatory options for the definitions of “relatively permanent” waters and “continuous surface connection” wetlands under the Clean Water Act, supplementing the agencies’ November 2025 proposed rule (90 FR 52498) revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA. The SNPRM does not propose additional changes to other components of the November 2025 proposal—which addressed, among other things, the interstate waters category and exclusions for waste treatment systems, prior converted cropland, ditches, and groundwater—and reflects the agencies’ analysis of approximately 220,000 public comments received on the initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 30-day public comment period closes on 9 October 2026.

• On 1 September 2026, California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued guidance for the inaugural reporting cycle under SB 253, California’s corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosure law. The guidance reiterates that CARB will exercise first-year enforcement discretion: companies can rely on Scope 1 and Scope 2 data they already had on hand, or were in the process of gathering, as of CARB’s December 2024 Enforcement Notice, and that data need not have gone through limited assurance for this initial 10 November 2026 filing. Companies that had no such data in hand as of that December 2024 date are not expected to file this cycle, though CARB asks them to submit a signed, letterhead statement confirming that. To satisfy the 2026 filing, companies may point to an existing annual report that already covers Scope 1 and 2 figures, hand over Scope 1 and 2 numbers previously furnished to another program or voluntary initiative, or work from CARB’s own draft reporting template. On methodology, CARB is not mandating a particular emissions-factor source for Scope 2 given the delay in the EPA’s eGRID (Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database) 2024 release, so companies can rely on eGRID 2023, the Cornerstone Sustainability Data Initiative’s eGRID 2024 dataset, or another credible source, and need not obtain third-party assurance despite SB 253’s general assurance mandate for this first cycle. Separately, CARB is running a second rulemaking to set the more detailed 2027-and-beyond requirements, covering Scope 3 reporting, methodology, and assurance.

• On 31 August 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published an interpretive rule concluding that it lacks statutory authority under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to set standalone fuel economy standards for engines used in commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, reversing the interpretation NHTSA has applied since its 2011 joint Phase 1 rulemaking with the EPA. NHTSA reasons that EISA authorizes fuel economy standards for “vehicles” but does not separately authorize standards for their engines—contrasting EISA with the Clean Air Act’s express reference to “motor vehicle engines”—and invokes the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision in Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association v. EPA. Issued without notice and comment, the rule does not itself repeal existing engine standards but signals relaxed enforcement pending a forthcoming notice-and-comment rulemaking to formally reset the medium- and heavy-duty program.

• On 14 August 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2026-50, expanding and extending the interim safe harbor previously established under Notice 2026-01 for taxpayers claiming the Section 45Q carbon oxide sequestration (carbon capture) credit. The notice responds to the EPA’s September 2025 proposal to eliminate Subpart RR reporting requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for reporting years after 2024, which would otherwise strip Section 45Q taxpayers of their principal means of substantiating secure geological storage through the EPA’s e-GGRT tool. Notice 2026-50 extends the safe harbor through the end of the calendar year in which Treasury and the IRS publish further Section 45Q measurement, reporting, and verification guidance; expands coverage to qualified carbon oxides used as a tertiary injectant in enhanced oil or natural gas recovery projects; and permits reliance on the safe harbor for 45Q recapture calculations. Treasury and the IRS also requested comments on whether the International Organization for Standardization’s ISO 27914:2026 standard should replace Subpart RR as the permanent compliance framework. The comment period closes on 30 October 2026.

• On 25 June 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed a rule revising its regulations implementing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA), 91 Fed. Reg. 38315. The proposal would, for the first time, expressly bring solar and wind electric generation and pipeline transportation land within the definition of “agricultural land” regardless of local zoning, lower the aggregate foreign-ownership reporting threshold from 50% to 10% and add a new “beneficial owner” trigger reaching foreign persons who exercise decision-making authority over covered land regardless of equity, and replace USDA’s discretionary penalty regime with an automatic fine followed by weekly accrual of up to 25% of fair market value per violation. The comment period closed on 10 August 2026; a final rule is expected by December 2026. If finalized, the rule would subject solar and wind projects with foreign equity or control participation to AFIDA reporting, disclosure, and penalty obligations that historically applied only to farmland holdings.

Presidential Actions

• On 30 September 2026, President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced the first three energy-infrastructure projects under the Republic of Korea's $200 billion strategic investment commitment made pursuant to the November 2025 U.S.–Korea Strategic Investment MOU implementing the July 2025 U.S.–Korea Trade Deal: (i) Project Star, a $22.3 billion, 6.47-gigawatt natural-gas-fired power plant in Encinal, Texas, developed by Related Companies, NextEra Energy Resources, and Lewis Energy Group; (ii) Project Power, up to $120 billion for eight nuclear reactors in the United States (six Westinghouse AP1000 units and two Korean APR1400 units), with Korean participation by Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power; and (iii) Project North, a $54 billion commitment to the Alaska LNG project (an 807-mile pipeline from the North Slope to a southern Alaska liquefaction facility), subject to commercial-reasonableness review. The Government of the Republic of Korea has publicly characterized only Project Star as finalized, with Projects Power and North subject to further review.

Congressional Actions

• On 30 September 2026, Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah)—Chairs of the Senate Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources Committees, respectively—together with Ranking Members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) introduced the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, a federal environmental review and permitting reform bill designed to accelerate energy and infrastructure buildout. The bill would amend portions of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, reform permitting processes for oil and gas, renewable energy, and electric transmission projects, provide that permitted energy and infrastructure projects retain their permits absent extraordinary circumstances, violations of law, or court order, and require data centers to pay for all of their associated transmission costs. The lead sponsors have stated they aim to advance the bill in the lame-duck session following the November elections.

• On 16 September 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, 417-3. The bill would amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to require utility rates charged to data-center-type “large-load customers” with peak demand of 100 megawatts or more at a single site or campus to recover the full incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrades needed to serve that load, and to require upfront financial assurances or contributions before the utility builds the upgrade. Each State regulatory authority and non-regulated electric utility would have two years to consider adopting the standard. On 17 September 2026, Senator Martin Heinrich—who has promoted his competing Grid Savings Act as a stronger alternative—blocked a Senate unanimous-consent request to pass the bill. The objection forecloses expedited passage, making near-term enactment unlikely absent a compromise with Senator Heinrich.

State Actions

• On 23 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the United States and the EPA, declaring New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement. The 2024 statute had established a $75 billion fund financed by imposing strict, retroactive liability on fossil fuel extraction and refining companies for their proportional share of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to worldwide production between 2000 and 2024. The court held that the statute is preempted by the Clean Air Act and intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive constitutional authority over foreign affairs because it reaches emissions from activity occurring outside the United States and does not address any traditional area of state responsibility. This was the second ruling against the state in connection with this law – a similar ruling from 31 August 2026 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in a lawsuit filed by a group of states and oil and gas coalitions held that the New York law was preempted by federal law and therefore unenforceable. New York is expected to appeal both rulings to the Second Circuit.

• On 21 September 2026, California and Washington each took the state-level steps needed to link their cap-and-trade markets with each other and with Québec. California Governor Gavin Newsom made the statutory findings required under California Government Code section 12894(f) before California can link its carbon market with another jurisdiction—confirming that Washington’s carbon market rules are at least as strict as California’s, that each state can adequately enforce its own rules, and that linking creates no significant liability for California—and authorizing the California Air Resources Board to begin the formal rulemaking needed to link the two markets. This builds on California’s existing partnership with Québec, Canada. Governor Newsom publicly announced the step during Climate Week NYC on 23 September 2026, alongside Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, who confirmed Washington had separately finished its own preparatory work, with its rule taking effect 24 October 2026. The three governments first agreed in principle to link their markets on 25 June 2026. Once linked, a regulated company needing to buy pollution allowances will be able to purchase them in whichever of the three markets is most efficient rather than only in its own jurisdiction. California still needs to complete its own formal rulemaking before the link takes effect, and the three jurisdictions are aiming to hold their first shared auction in early 2027.

• On 17 September 2026, the Chatham County Superior Court in North Carolina granted a data center developer’s motion for summary judgment against Chatham County over the county’s twelve-month February 2026 moratorium on new data center development. The developer had argued that its project could proceed regardless—on the basis of a statutory exemption, vested development rights, permit-choice protections, and estoppel—having received county confirmation in October 2025 that the project qualified for by-right development; the county disputed each ground and defended the moratorium as validly adopted. The court granted judgment for the developer on liability and awarded attorney’s fees, with damages reserved for further proceedings. The ruling is an early merits-stage win for developers challenging local data center moratoria and will likely be cited in similar pending suits.

• On 8 September 2026, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed an executive order aimed at regulating how large data centers are developed and operated in the state, with a focus on shielding ratepayers, host communities, and the environment from the costs of this growth. Under the order, state permitting bodies (including the environmental agency, energy siting board, and the state environmental review office) may not approve permits for data center projects drawing more than 25 megawatts unless the developer shows it follows the Governor’s earlier expectations framework and has negotiated a benefits package with local stakeholders, which must be submitted to the state’s environmental justice office. Large facilities will need to either secure new clean power sources matching their yearly usage or pay into a fund that offsets electricity costs for other customers, and regulators will also be evaluating the climate impact of these facilities and setting water-use standards they must satisfy. The order additionally imposes yearly disclosure obligations on qualifying data centers and calls for state agencies to publish a guidance document to help municipalities navigate data center proposals in their communities.

EPA Litigation

• On 22 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA illegally terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program in a suit filed by Harris County, Texas—which had lost a nearly $250 million grant awarded to a Texas solar coalition—holding EPA’s decision “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory authority” and setting aside the cancellation program-wide, not just Harris County’s grant. Four days earlier, on 18 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island vacated EPA’s August 2025 termination of the program in a suit brought by a coalition of labor, legal aid, and solar advocacy organizations, holding that EPA’s termination was contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Both courts rejected EPA’s position that Congress’s repeal of the underlying Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act authorized termination of already-obligated Solar for All grants. EPA is reviewing both decisions and considering an appeal.

ESG Litigation

• Also on 22 September 2026, several conservation groups filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) 25 June 2026 order granting a pipeline operator a special permit to operate onshore segments of a Central Coast California pipeline system—the same corroded pipeline segment responsible for the 2015 Plains Oil Spill at Refugio State Beach. The petitioners allege that PHMSA unlawfully wrested jurisdiction over the pipelines from the California State Fire Marshal and that the special permit violates the Pipeline Safety Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act by waiving federal safety requirements and failing to make the required findings about pipeline safety, and seek vacatur of the permit.

• Also on 22 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Michigan’s antitrust lawsuit against several oil and gas companies and an industry association for lack of any viable basis under federal antitrust law. The suit, filed in January 2026 by the Michigan Attorney General, accused the defendants of forming a “cartel” that suppressed renewable energy and electric vehicle development and misrepresented climate risks, raising costs for Michigan residents. The court held that antitrust law did not reach most alleged injuries and, even for energy overcharges, “the distance is too great between the alleged conspiracy and Michigan’s and its residents’ overcharges to find that the conspiracy proximately caused the overcharges.” Notable for its novel antitrust theory among the roughly three dozen climate-related suits state and local governments have filed against oil companies over the past decade, the dismissal follows similar rejections in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina.

• On 21 September 2026, several conservation groups filed a Clean Air Act citizen suit against a data center developer and its co-located gas-fired power plant operator in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging the developers’ two AI data center campuses in San Antonio and their co-located 405 MW “behind-the-meter” gas-fired power plants and 151 diesel backup generators—enough capacity to power roughly one-fifth of San Antonio’s homes. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants improperly obtained “minor source” air permits from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality by treating each data center and its co-located power plant as separate pollution sources, when the projects’ combined scale required “major source” preconstruction permits under the federal Clean Air Act, and they seek an order halting all construction and operation until the projects undergo the permitting required for major polluters. 

• Also on 21 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied environmental organizations’ and a tribal nation’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed exchange of roughly 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron County, Texas—adjacent to a private aerospace company’s launch site—for approximately 683 acres of privately owned land. Plaintiffs argued the exchange would harm wildlife and impair members’ ability to observe and access wildlife on the affected land. The court rejected the access theory for lack of standing, finding the property was already legally closed to the public and plaintiffs could not lose a right they never held. On the environmental claims, it credited the Service’s “compelling evidence” that the exchange would reduce habitat fragmentation—by returning roughly 200 acres adjacent to or inside the existing refuge near the launch site and about 476 acres bordering the neighboring Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge—against plaintiffs’ “relatively weak evidence of environmental harm,” and found no irreparable harm. The underlying complaint seeks vacatur of the exchange, and plaintiffs have signaled a possible appeal.

• On 18 September 2026, several environmental nonprofits filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 55-mile, 42-inch natural gas pipeline authorized on 29 January 2026, whose new pipeline segments run through Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Rockingham, Guilford, Forsyth, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina, as part of a broader project that also includes compressor station upgrades extending into South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Petitioners contend FERC’s approval was arbitrary and capricious because the agency ignored evidence that the pipeline and a second, co-located pipeline project FERC also approved would combine to inflict severe and potentially permanent damage on streams across Virginia and North Carolina, and unlawfully segmented its environmental review of the two projects. They ask the court to vacate the FERC certificate.

• Also on 18 September 2026, the City of Gibraltar, Michigan filed a motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that its one-year data center moratorium is not a final land use decision ripe for judicial review. The underlying suit, filed 17 August 2026 by a data center developer and a property owner, alleges the moratorium—adopted by resolution on 9 March 2026—unfairly singled out the plaintiffs’ site plan for a 100-megawatt data center at a former industrial steel site to avoid reviewing an application submitted before the moratorium, and asserts due process, equal protection, takings, and improper-adoption (resolution rather than ordinance) claims, seeking declaratory relief. A similar suit was filed in the same court against the City of Wixom over its own data center moratorium in August 2026, and Wixom moved to dismiss on 1 September 2026. The Michigan motions come as developer challenges to local data center moratoria advance elsewhere on the merits, most notably the Chatham County, North Carolina summary judgment discussed above.

• On 17 September 2026, the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066 in a 6-3 decision, holding that “[b]ecause the provisions that introduce distinct subjects are not severable, I-2066 is unconstitutional in its entirety”. The measure, approved by voters in November 2024, had barred state and local governments from banning, restricting, or discouraging natural gas service, and repealed sections of House Bill 1589 (the 2024 law pushing a major regional gas utility away from gas) and energy code provisions that made gas heat more costly to install in new construction. The majority found the initiative also inhibited local air quality regulators’ authority, removed zero-emission goals from state law, and amended the Washington Decarbonization Act for Large Combination Utilities—packaging together, in the majority’s view, four constitutionally distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule under Article II, Section 19. The ruling affirmed a March 2025 King County Superior Court decision invalidating the measure, though on narrower grounds than the trial court had used. Three justices dissented, writing that the offending sections could have been severed and the remainder of the initiative upheld as constitutional.

• On 16 September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of trade groups against New Mexico’s per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) product labeling requirements, finding the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that the labeling mandate was unconstitutional compelled commercial speech, that there was no reasonable fit between the requirement and the state’s stated interest in protecting health and the environment, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The suit was brought by a coalition of industry associations against the New Mexico Environment Department and the Attorney General, after the state Environmental Improvement Board approved the labeling rule on 23 March 2026. The rule would have required products containing intentionally added PFAS sold in the state to bear an Erlenmeyer-flask label reading “PFAS,” beginning with products manufactured after 1 January 2027—described as the broadest such mandate nationally, since other states’ labeling laws reach only a few discrete product categories. A parallel challenge by a single company remains pending in New Mexico state court, which has not yet ruled. The ruling does not affect the state’s separate PFAS reporting obligations (due by 1 January 2027) or its phased material restrictions culminating in a 2032 prohibition on products containing intentionally added PFAS absent an exemption.

• On 11 September 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously vacated the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) 23 May 2025 emergency order requiring Consumers Energy to continue operating the 1960s-era J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in West Olive, Michigan beyond its planned 31 May 2025 retirement, holding that DOE’s order was an unlawful use of its Section 202(c) emergency authority under the Federal Power Act. Michigan had petitioned for review of the order, contending that it disregarded prior state and regional planning and regulatory approvals for Campbell’s retirement. The vacatur reaches only DOE’s initial (now-expired) order and does not address DOE’s five subsequent 90-day extensions—the most recent of which requires Consumers Energy to continue operating the plant through 14 November 2026, nearly 18 months beyond its approved retirement date, at a reported cost to Midwest ratepayers of $295 million through 30 June 2026.

• On 10 September 2026, the North Carolina Department of Justice (NCDOJ) and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) announced a $590 million settlement with a chemical manufacturer and its two corporate affiliates resolving natural-resource-damage and PFAS-contamination claims brought by the State of North Carolina and 11 southeastern North Carolina local entities arising from decades of PFAS discharges from the manufacturer’s Fayetteville Works chemical plant into the Cape Fear River, which supplies drinking water to approximately 500,000 residents. The settlement—arising from a 2020 NCDOJ lawsuit seeking compensation for damage to the state’s natural resources—provides for $455 million in guaranteed payments over 10 to 15 years, comprising $75 million to the state (with approximately $55 million directed to North Carolina’s Emerging Contaminant Mitigation Fund) and $380 million divided among 11 local governments, and establishes a $135 million reserve fund financed by the manufacturer’s corporate affiliates to guarantee the manufacturer’s continuing performance under NCDEQ’s 2019 consent order. The consent order requires the manufacturer to control PFAS air emissions, provide filtration to residents with PFAS-contaminated wells, reduce PFAS in the Cape Fear River, and remediate all sources of chemical contamination at Fayetteville Works. The North Carolina settlement follows a similar settlement in New Jersey, where a federal court approved more than $2.5 billion in PFAS settlements on 7 August 2026, including $875 million to be paid by the manufacturer and its corporate affiliates over 25 years for natural-resource damage and other costs, alongside a separate $400–450 million commitment from a different manufacturer to resolve drinking-water contamination claims.

• On 4 September 2026, the SEC filed an application in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel a major proxy advisory firm to comply with an administrative subpoena, escalating a dispute that had been building since the SEC’s Division of Examinations opened an inquiry into the firm in March 2026. That inquiry sought proxy voting platform data on client identities, voting recommendations, and how each client actually voted; the firm turned over only a handful of sample client reports, then balked when the SEC asked for the equivalent data across its full client base for the period July 2024 through February 2026, citing burden and confidentiality. After the firm’s continued resistance, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation on 20 July 2026 and served an investigative subpoena the next day; the firm offered to have an outside expert anonymize the data rather than producing it directly, an approach the SEC rejected. The firm has argued that its clients disclose voting strategies and decisions in confidence and could face competitive harm or retaliation if that data became public, invoking President Trump’s December 2025 executive order directing heightened SEC scrutiny of proxy advisors over concerns that such firms might “advance and prioritize radical politically-motivated agendas.” The SEC has countered that it would be “wholly appropriate” to examine whether the firm’s voting advice is shaped by political or policy considerations rather than client interests. The firm and its main competitor together handle the large majority of U.S. proxy advisory work, and the SEC has previously examined the firm four times without needing to go to court to obtain compliance.

DEI Developments

• On 14 September 2026, the United States Department of Justice announced that a multinational professional services company agreed to pay the United States $25 million, including roughly $11.6 million in restitution, to resolve claims under the False Claims Act that the company falsely certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination obligations while engaging in race- and sex-conscious employment practices. The government alleged that the company tracked internal, non-public workforce demographic targets by business unit, using color-coded scorecards, and adjusted hiring efforts, including a targeted entry-level recruiting push in late 2020 and early 2021, to advance those targets. The government further alleged that the company gave separate visibility and ranking to promotion candidates who advanced its demographic goals, including in decisions on managing director promotions. The settlement also resolved allegations concerning a training and mentoring program that the company operated between August 2022 and February 2025 and that limited eligibility based on race. The company did not admit wrongdoing, and the agreement expressly states it is not an admission of liability. The settlement resolves the government’s civil claims for the conduct at issue but expressly preserves pending or future U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges and any liability of individuals.

• On 12 August 2026, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against a major U.S. university, alleging that the university unlawfully retaliated against a former employee for opposing race discrimination, filing an EEOC Charge of Discrimination, and participating in the EEOC’s investigation of her charge. According to the complaint, the employee was placed alone in a separate video conferencing breakout room based on her race during a mandatory DEI training session in January 2025, despite having raised concerns in advance about being separated from colleagues. The complaint alleges she reported the incident as distressing both to the training’s organizers and, shortly after, through an internal complaint to the university’s Office of Institutional Equity. The EEOC alleges that after she filed a formal discrimination charge with the agency in July 2025, her supervisors gradually reassigned her responsibilities and ultimately eliminated her position in November 2025. The EEOC contends this conduct violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and filed suit after conciliation efforts with the university failed. The agency is seeking injunctive relief, back pay and reinstatement or front pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages on the employee’s behalf.

International Developments

• In September 2026, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Business and Human Rights issued a call for input for a thematic report to be presented to the Human Rights Council’s 65th session in June 2027 examining how businesses, States, and investors should address “legacy human rights harms”—past business-related impacts whose consequences remain unresolved and whose accountability and remedy remain contested. The report, framed through the three pillars of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, will focus in particular on how corporate transitions such as mergers and acquisitions, divestments, privatizations, and project transfers can leave affected rights-holders without an identifiable duty-bearer or an effective remedy. Written stakeholder submissions are due by 28 October 2026.

• New York City Climate Week 2026: Key U.S. Climate and Sustainability Resources
• Unlocking the Queue? Ofgem's Proposed Reforms for Data Centre Connections