ESG Newsletter - November 2026

New podcast series: Sustainability due diligence & supply chain risk management

We have launched a new podcast series on sustainability due diligence and supply chain management. 

In the first podcast, James Marlow and Guillaume Croisant discuss the regulatory landscape, how we got here, and some key takeaways for understanding the complex landscape. Click here to listen. 

In the second podcast, James Marlow, Guillaume Croisant and Sarah Martin discuss what is driving the rise in litigation exposure, litigation and liability in practice, and what businesses should be doing. Click here to listen. 

Stay tuned for new episodes in the coming weeks. 

Global: ISSB consults on nature disclosure guidance 

On 22 October 2026, the ISSB launched a consultation on proposed nature-related disclosure guidance. The guidance would take the form of an IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Practice Statement that sets out incremental disclosure requirements, in addition to those in IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, for nature-related risks and opportunities. The ISSB’s rationale for choosing non-mandatory guidance is that this will allow it to specify incremental requirements that address investor needs, while minimising disruption to the ongoing global adoption of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. However, one matter on which the ISSB is seeking feedback is whether to finalise the nature-related guidance as a Practice Statement or to issue it in another form such as a Standard. The consultation closes on 19 February 2027. For more information, see our blog post. 

EU CSRD: EFRAG consults on its 2027-2029 sustainability reporting agenda

On 16 October 2026, EFRAG launched a consultation on what it should focus on over the next three years. The consultation closes on 15 February 2027. EFRAG expects no new standard-setting work between 2027 and 2029 once ESRS-40a (for certain non-EU undertakings) is finalised at the start of 2027. EFRAG does not plan to revise the 2024 implementation guidance on double materiality (IG1), guidance on the value chain (IG2), or the compilations of Q&A explanations. Instead of the old Q&A mechanism, EFRAG is proposing a new Implementation Support System (ISS). EFRAG expects to discuss the feedback to its consultation during the first half of 2027 and to issue its final 2027–2029 workplan in Q2 2027, following approval of its Sustainability Reporting Board. For more information, see our blog post. 

EU: SFDR 2.0: Parliament adopts its negotiating mandate as trilogues get the green light 

On 10 September 2026, the European Parliament's ECON Committee adopted its report on the review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR 2.0), reaching a broad compromise on the proposed text. The European Parliament plenary then formally endorsed this report as its negotiating mandate on 5 October 2026. The first trilogue meeting between the Parliament and the Council took place on 22 October, and the second round is scheduled for 19 November 2026. The co-legislators are aiming to reach political agreement by the end of 2026. For more information on the Parliament’s negotating position, see here, and on the Council's negotiating position, see here. 

EU: EBA releases final technical package for release 4.4 of its reporting and Pillar 3 disclosure framework 

On 12 October 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final technical package for version 4.4 of its reporting and disclosure framework. Whilst the package does not create any new ESG obligations, it puts in place the technical specifications for amended Pillar 3 requirements (see our earlier blog post). It includes corrected Data Point Models (DPM), XBRL taxonomies and the validation rules for reporting requirements behind an IFRS 18-aligned FINREP module, amended Pillar 3 disclosures on ESG risks, equity exposures and shadow banking, and Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB)-related disclosure templates. It also includes technical corrections to resolution planning, MREL decisions, and third-country branch liquidity reporting, in particular template E 09.02. It also introduces eligibility templates and revised specifications for the Anti-Money Laundering Authority's 2027 risk assessment data collection exercise. The package represents the first phase of the framework’s technical implementation. The EBA expects to release the second phase of framework 4.4 in early 2027. The second phase will implement the supervisory reporting simplification package, which is currently being finalised, and is expected to apply from September 2027 (see our earlier blog post).

EU: ESMA sets out further guidance to combat greenwashing 

On 12 October 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published two further thematic notes on sustainability-related claims to help market participants communicate more clearly with their investors. The notes form part of broader efforts to help firms manage greenwashing risks and ensure that investors are not misled by ESG claims. The notes focus on impact claims related to funds and bonds, and climate transition claims used across funds, bonds and benchmarks. They offer useful and practical guidance, including “do’s” and “don’ts” and practical examples of good and poor practice based on observed market practices. As with the previous notes, they centre around four guiding principles that should inform and underpin sustainability related claims, namely that they should be accurate, accessible, substantiated, and up-to-date. For more information, see our blog post.

EU: ESMA announces 2026 enforcement priorities for corprate reporting 

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its annual European Common Enforcement Priorities (ECEP) statement, addressing 2026 corporate reporting. The statement sets out the areas that ESMA, together with national enforcers across the European Economic Area (EEA), will focus on when reviewing the 2026 annual financial reports of issuers admitted to trading on EEA regulated markets. 

On sustainability reporting, ESMA sets two headline priorities for 2026: (i) continuing the progress along the materiality learning curve; and (ii) providing connected information on impacts, risks and opportunities (IROs), policies, actions and targets (PATs), and metrics. ESMA flags that FY2026 is a transitional year for the reporting standards issuers. ESMA expects issuers to be transparent about which version of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) they use for 2026 reporting. Issuers reporting under Set 1 with Set 2 reliefs are reminded that the list of available reliefs is exhaustive and cannot be extended. 

Disclosures on the materiality of impacts, risks and opportunities, and on the double materiality assessment (DMA) process, remain a focus area for enforcers. ESMA recommendations include the following: 

• issuers should give negative impacts the same rigour as positive ones and disclose their materiality thresholds clearly;

• DMA disclosures should be concise, company-specific, and cover both the issuer's own operations and its value chain;

• the "entity-specific" category should only be used once ESRS categorisation options are exhausted.

ESMA expects consistency across disclosures on IROs, policies, actions and targets, and metrics. While this applies across all topics, enforcers will focus for FY2026 on E1 Climate change and S1 Own workforce, given the relative maturity of reporting in these areas. In this area, ESMA recommendations include the following: 

• policies and targets should clearly address the material IROs identified, and any gaps, such as a target or PAT covering only part of a broader IRO, must be disclosed.

• ESMA reminds issuers to ensure consistency between the IROs disclosed in the sustainability statement and the risks reported elsewhere in the annual financial report.

• targets should be measurable and time-bound, with progress disclosed and any shortfall or missed target communicated promptly, together with the reasons and corrective actions, rather than reported selectively.

ESMA states that because the Climate, Environmental and Disclosures Delegated Acts under the EU Taxonomy framework are under revision, the 2026 ECEP does not include specific Taxonomy recommendations, although enforcers will continue to supervise Taxonomy disclosures in FY2026 sustainability statements. 

EU: ESMA and EBA finalise proposals to simplify Taxonomy reporting

The European Supervisory Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) have submitted their final reports of technical advice to the European Commission on targeted changes to EU Taxonomy disclosure rules. The recommendations are part of the wider EU regulatory simplification strategy and cover key performance indicators (KPIs), group reporting and template changes for sustainability disclosures. The reports respond to a request from the European Commission in March 2026 for targeted technical advice to support its forthcoming review of the Disclosures Delegated Act under Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation.  The Commission will now consider the recommendations in these reports as part of its review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act. According to the call for advice, the Commission intends to adopt the amendments in Q1 2027. For more information, see our blog post. 

UK: SDR - Managers with AUM of £5b or more, are you ready for the 2 December entity level reporting deadline? 

Under the FCA's Sustainability Disclosure Regime (SDR), it has adopted a tiered approach to disclosures, with obligations to produce consumer facing disclosures, product level disclosures and finally, entity level disclosures. The entity level disclosure rules require UK managers managing a UK UCITS or an AIF (UCITS management companies, relevant UCITS ICVCs, and full-scope or small authorised UK AIFMs) to make annual, entity-level disclosures as part of a "sustainability entity report" (a public report regarding the overall assets managed by a manager in relation to its sustainability in-scope business), unless their assets under management in relation to that sustainability in-scope business are below £5 billion (calculated as a three-year rolling average on an annual assessment). This disclosure obligation has applied to managers meeting the requirements of an enhanced SMCR firm since 2 December 2025. From 2 December 2026, the obligation extends to all other fund managers meeting the £5bn threshold. For more information, see our blog post. 

Global: UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2026: key messages 

On 21 October 2026, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published its Emissions Gap Report 2026 (see here and here), which finds that temporarily exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is now unavoidable, and calls for fast, deep and sustained emissions reductions to minimise the magnitude and duration of this overshoot and return warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century. If current policies continue, the report projects warming of 2.8°C by 2100, or 2.6°C if all Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are delivered and a similar level of ambition continues thereafter. The latter projection is higher than last year's, driven by the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and revised historical emissions estimates.

The report is explicit that the goals of the Paris Agreement remain within reach, but significant emissions gaps remain between current NDCs and the reductions required. Under the report's “lowest possible overshoot scenario”, global greenhouse gas emissions would need to fall by 18% by 2030, 45% by 2035 and 69% by 2040 relative to 2025 levels, with a 66% chance of limiting peak warming to 1.7–1.8°C and around a 50% chance of returning warming to 1.5°C by 2100. This is significantly beyond the 5-8% by 2030 and 11-15% by 2035 reductions that full implementation of current NDCs would deliver. Large-scale carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere would also be needed, roughly 320 gigatonnes over the course of the century, although the report points out that socioeconomic and technological challenges make delivery at that scale uncertain.

The report states that climate policies can be, and have been, effective at reducing emissions. Since the Paris Agreement, renewable energy capacity has increased around three times as much as anticipated, and solar PV seven times as much, and more than 220 policy evaluations provide evidence that climate policies have reduced emissions across sectors and countries. However, successes remain concentrated in specific sectors, countries and periods, so bridging the emission gap will require replicating, upscaling, and accelerating the delivery of successful climate policies and actions across the global economy. 

Global: COP31: What to expect?  

COP31 will take place on 9-20 November 2026 in Antalya, Turkey. This global climate summit will again bring together leaders, businesses and civil society from nearly 200 countries to continue efforts to implement the Paris Agreement. Here are some of the things to look out for this year: clean energy transition and electrification; the unfinished business of a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels; and the emerging role of AI in climate action. For more information, see our blog post. 

European Commission presents EU Climate Resilience Framework 

The European Commission has unveiled its new EU Framework for Climate Resilience, including a proposal for a European Climate Resilience Law. The Commission points to a current warming trajectory of around 2°C by 2050 and 3°C by 2100 globally, while Europe is already warming at around twice the global average rate. Against that backdrop, the Draft Law aims to create a more consistent EU-wide approach to assessing climate risk and planning for resilience. Although the Draft Law is aimed at public authorities rather than the private sector directly, it is also intended to strengthen private sector awareness of climate risks and help ensure those risks are reflected in investment and business decisions. The package also includes a range of non-legislative initiatives and new online tools, including planned Climate Insurance Alliance, a European Heatwave Plan and other supporting measures. For more information on the key elements of the Draft Law, see blog post. 

EU: European Commission proposes delaying key Methane Regulation import and and reporting deadlines 

On 14 October 2026, the European Commission adopted a proposal to postpone by one year certain requirements under the EU Methane Regulation. The proposed amendments relate to monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for importers of natural gas, oil and coal, as well as methane-intensity reporting requirements for both importers and EU producers. On 22 October, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position on the Commission’s proposal, in which it agreed on the need to postpone the requirements but proposes a three-year delay, rather than the one-year postponement proposed by the Commission. The Council still needs to adopt its own negotiating position on the file before trilogue negotiations can begin. For more information, see our blog post. 

New podcast series: Sustainability due diligence & supply chain risk management

We have launched a new podcast series on sustainability due diligence and supply chain management. 

In the first podcast, James Marlow and Guillaume Croisant discuss the regulatory landscape, how we got here, and some key takeaways for understanding the complex landscape. Click here to listen. 

In the second podcast, James Marlow, Guillaume Croisant and Sarah Martin discuss what is driving the rise in litigation exposure, litigation and liability in practice, and what businesses should be doing. Click here to listen. 

Stay tuned for new episodes in the coming weeks. 

UK: A quarter of a century on, is the UK ready to rethink whistleblowing? 

The government has recently launched a consultation on the UK whistleblowing regime, and while a radical rewrite of the law is not being proposed, there are several significant proposals for reform for UK employers to note. The consultation touches on several key aspects, from who is protected, to how disclosures are made, to how quickly dismissed whistleblowers can apply for interim relief. It also adds momentum to a conversation that has been happening in the UK over the past few years about whether (and how) whistleblowers should be financially rewarded. For more information, see our blog post. 

The new rules of engagement: ESG in defence investment 

Global military spending reached US$2.88 trillion in 2025, the highest level ever recorded. NATO members account for 55 per cent of that total, and allied leaders have committed to spending up to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. Capital is flowing into aerospace, defence and security. Investors, lenders and asset managers who might previously have stayed on the sidelines are now asking the same question: can I square defence investment with my ESG policies and mandates? There is a common misconception that ESG and defence investment are fundamentally at odds. That is not necessarily the case. A robust understanding of ESG factors can help investors define risk appetite, identify strategies to manage and monitor risk, and identify opportunities the sector presents, opening the door to investment rather than acting as an automatic bar to it. For more information, see our blog post. 

See also key takeaways from our inaugural Defence & Security Symposium: Capital, regulation and capability in a new era and our client briefing Private Capital in Aerospace, Defence and Security. 

Mainland China: MOF releases draft application guides for corporate sustainability disclosure standards

On 28 September 2026, China’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft application guide (the Application Guide) for the Sustainability Disclosure Standards for Business Enterprises No.1 - Climate (Trial) (the Climate Standards), together with draft application guides specific to nine industries: electric power, steel, coal, petroleum, chemical fertiliser, aluminium, hydrogen, cement, and automotive (the Industry Application Guides). China’s sustainability disclosure standards system is structured in three layers: the basic standards, specific standards, and application guides. As the third and most operational layer of the system, the application guides translate the specific standards into clearer, more operable guidance for enterprises. The Climate Standards were issued on 19 December 2025 as the first of the specific standards, while the Application Guide, when finalised, will address issues common to implementation of the Climate Standards; the nine Industry Application Guides are then intended to build on the Application Guide to address industry-specific risks, opportunities, emission sources, indicators and targets. For more information on the PRC sustainability disclosure standards system, please see our ESG Quick Guide: PRC sustainability disclosure standards. The consultation closed on 26 October 2026.

Hong Kong SAR: HKEX launches Green Equity designation programme

On 20 October 2026, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) announced the launch of HKEX Green Equity, a new voluntary designation programme designed to help investors more readily identify Hong Kong-listed companies with significant green business activities (see HKEX’s press release). The new HKEX Green Equity programme aims to provide a transparent framework to highlight companies making tangible contributions to the green economy. It is open to both listed and non-listed companies. Companies are assessed by an independent Recognised Reviewer against the HKEX Green Equity Framework, which draws on relevant taxonomies and the WFE Green Equity Principles. To be eligible, companies must meet both the operational and financial criteria, including compliance with applicable environmental and social laws, appropriate board-level oversight of the company’s sustainability strategy and at least 50% of revenue derived from green activities. Companies that successfully meet the framework requirements will be awarded the HKEX Green Equity designation and will be entitled to use the designation mark, subject to ongoing compliance. The accreditation needs to be renewed annually.

Hong Kong SAR: HKEX’s Core Climate completes first cross-boundary pilots in green electricity certificates and carbon allowances

On 14 October 2026, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) announced the successful completion of two cross-boundary pilot programmes facilitated by Core Climate, together with a cooperation agreement with the Guangzhou Power Exchange Centre (GPEC) to support the further development of the Green Electricity Certificate (GEC) market. The first pilot enabled Hong Kong corporates to purchase GECs through GPEC, while the second tested the settlement of Shenzhen Emission Allowance (SZEA) transactions with the Shenzhen Green Exchange (SGE). Together, the initiatives expand access to green energy instruments and strengthen carbon market connectivity across the Greater Bay Area. 

Singapore: MAS releases statement on banks’ management of haze-related environmental risks

On 28 October 2026, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) reinforced its expectations for banks to identify, assess, manage and monitor material environmental risks, including pollution and deforestation, taking into account relevant information released by the National Environment Agency under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (see MAS press release). Banks should engage customers potentially linked to haze-contributing activities to understand their involvement and measures to prevent, detect and stop fires. Where heightened environmental risks are identified, banks should take appropriate mitigating measures, including imposing conditions, reviewing financing terms, limiting exposures or reassessing customer relationships. These expectations build on MAS’ Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management and Guidelines on Transition Planning. On the same topic, the Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) has confirmed that it is seeking further disclosure from seven agri-companies which are listed in Singapore, relating to their operations and potential linkages to the forest fires in Indonesia and haze affecting the region.

Singapore: Renewable energy certificate standard updated to address greenwashing risk

On 27 October 2026, Enterprise Singapore, through the Singapore Standards Council, together with the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry and the Energy Market Authority (EMA), announced an update to Singapore Standard 673 (SS673), the country’s voluntary code of practice for renewable energy certificates (RECs). The update clarifies which RECs should support renewable electricity usage claims in Singapore and aims to strengthen confidence in sustainability reporting and reduce greenwashing risk. Under the updated standard, companies making renewable electricity claims in Singapore should use RECs linked to renewable electricity supplied to Singapore’s power grid (which includes electricity generated in Singapore and qualifying electricity imports from other countries). 

The updated SS673 distinguishes between three types of RECs (i) domestic RECs, from renewable electricity produced in Singapore and supplied to the Singapore power grid; (ii) RECs from approved cross-border electricity trade (CBET) projects, associated with overseas renewable energy installations that contractually supply electricity to Singapore via a physical interconnection to the Singapore power grid; and (iii) RECs from other overseas sources, where there is no physical electricity flow into Singapore. 

Under the updated SS673, market-based Scope 2 claims (meaning claims that a company uses renewable electricity in Singapore) should be supported by domestic RECs or CBET RECs. Companies adopting the updated standard will no longer be able to use RECs linked to overseas renewable electricity projects that do not supply electricity to Singapore to support claims that they use renewable electricity in Singapore. These RECs remain available for purchase to support renewable energy development overseas, but they cannot be used to substantiate a renewable electricity claim relating to Singapore. The update therefore strengthens the link between claims of renewable electricity consumption in Singapore and renewable electricity supplied to the Singapore power grid. 

Indonesia: OJK issues 2026–2030 Indonesian Banking Development and Strengthening Roadmap (RP3I) and climate risk management guide

On 2 October 2026, Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority (OJK) introduced the 2026–2030 Indonesian Banking Development and Strengthening Roadmap (2026-2030 RP3I) to strengthen the foundation and increase the competitiveness of the banking industry. One of the five strategic priorities under the 2026–2030 RP3I is “strengthening the implementation of sustainable finance and sustainability risk management, while encouraging deeper financing that supports the transformation towards a sustainable economy.”  The OJK has also issued the 2026 Banking Climate Risk Management and Scenario Analysis (CRMS) Guidelines. The updated CRMS Guidelines strengthen the general framework of climate risk management, technical methodologies for measuring risk impacts, emission methodologies and calculators, updating macroeconomic scenarios and assumptions, providing physical risk data, reporting working papers, and providing a framework so that reporting is more consistent. 

Malaysia publishes human rights due diligence guide for businesses in Malaysia

On 7 October 2026, Malaysia published the Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Guide for Businesses in Malaysia (the HRDD Guide). The HRDD Guide is intended to provide practical guidance to businesses, across sizes and sectors, on integrating human rights considerations into their policies, operations and business relationships. The HRDD Guide draws on internationally recognised standards, including the UNGPs, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, and relevant International Labour Organization (ILO) standards, while taking into account Malaysia’s legal and business context. The HRDD Guide follows the publication of Malaysia's National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights 2025-2030 (NAPBHR), which was launched in 2025. 

Presidential Actions

• On 5 October 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily allowing road vehicles’ use of dyed diesel fuel and deferring the related federal excise taxes without penalties or interest. The order called upon the Treasury Secretary to: (1) determine whether penalty relief and excise tax liability are authorized under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7508A; (2) direct the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) not to impose penalties under IRC § 6715(a)(1) or (a)(2) for dyed diesel fuel sold for highway use or used on highways between 5 October and 30 December 2026; and (3) “explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate” the deferred tax obligation altogether. The U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Agriculture were separately directed to coordinate with states and other interested parties regarding access to the diesel. The IRS announced on 14 October 2026 that it will not impose a penalty when dyed diesel fuel is sold for use or used on highways between 1 October 2026 (retroactively) and 31 December 2026. During this period, ordinary collection and enforcement procedures are suspended; the relief applies only for federal tax purposes, and further IRS guidance is to follow.

Federal Agency Action

• On 20 October 2026, the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for voluntary remand of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) July 2024 approval of the construction and operations plan for an offshore wind developer’s New England Wind 1 and 2 projects (up to 129 turbines and 2.6 gigawatts off Massachusetts), arguing the approval violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and asking the court to let Interior reconsider it. The filing was made in a May 2025 suit in which environmental and fishing advocacy groups, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and several individuals seek declaratory and injunctive relief against BOEM, Interior, Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service for alleged OCSLA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations. It is the fourth voluntary-remand request the administration has filed in recent weeks defending prior offshore wind approvals, following similar motions on Revolution Wind, Atlantic Shores, and Maryland Offshore Wind—a pattern some senators, including a co-sponsor of the permitting-reform bill discussed below, have said could affect the pending negotiations. Relatedly, on 9 October 2026 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Interior filed a summary judgment motion in the same court conceding that BOEM’s Revolution Wind approval off Rhode Island should likewise be remanded, in a suit by advocacy groups and Rhode Island residents. Interior argued the approval may not satisfy OCSLA Section 1337(p)(4)’s twelve enumerated criteria (including impacts to commercial fisheries) and that the record does not explain how the project’s potential moderate-to-major adverse impacts are consistent with that mandate - following the administration’s earlier, unsuccessful attempt to halt the project via stop-work order.
• On 15 October 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a draft policy statement eliminating the requirement for air dispersion modeling in Natural Gas Act (NGA) applications and in FERC’s own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) air-quality reviews, as part of a broader push to speed up pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) project approvals. FERC reasoned that such modeling is duplicative of Clean Air Act permitting handled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County narrowing the scope of NEPA review. FERC commissioners separately proposed a three-tiered blanket-authorization framework for LNG terminal construction and expansion activities—ranging from automatic approval with notice to projects requiring a 60- or 90-day review period - modeled on its existing pipeline blanket-authorization program. Both proposals remain in draft/proposed form and are not yet final.
• On 13 October 2026, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (signed 8 October 2026, effective 14 December 2026) that extends the deadline by three years - from 1 June 2027 to 1 June 2030 - for certain facilities to prepare Clean Water Act (CWA) § 311 Facility Response Plans (FRPs) covering worst-case discharges of CWA hazardous substances, and that amends the underlying March 2024 FRP rule to strip out references to climate change and environmental-justice communities, consistent with Executive Order 14148. The rule applies to onshore non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment if a CWA hazardous substance reaches navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. Those facilities are no longer expressly told to factor climate-driven resilience, weather vulnerability, or environmental-justice impacts into their hazard evaluations, though the underlying obligation to prepare an FRP for worst-case discharges stands, and facilities must still plan for flooding, hurricanes, and other severe weather relevant to their operations.
• On 8 October 2026, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) published a Federal Register notice requesting public comments on whether the European Union’s (EU) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and pending EU proposals to expand its scope disadvantage U.S. companies relative to EU or third-country competitors, and whether and what enforcement action may be appropriate to address any resulting harm. CBAM entered full operation on 1 January 2026 and requires EU importers of aluminum, cement, electricity, fertilizer, hydrogen, and iron and steel products to declare the embedded greenhouse-gas emissions of imported goods and purchase corresponding CBAM certificates; USTR also seeks input on three pending EU legislative proposals to extend CBAM to downstream steel- and aluminum-intensive goods (the European Commission’s December 2025 proposal, the Council of the EU’s June 2026 general approach, and the European Parliament’s 15 September 2026 position—the latter two of which would add roughly 300 and 400 covered products, respectively). The notice does not initiate a Section 301 investigation; comments are due by 11:59 p.m. ET on 9 November 2026.
• On 7 October 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosed in a report that it had closed an investigation into current and former Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) members and one other major financial institution over potential violations of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The investigation focused on the group’s role in the May 2021 annual meeting of a major energy company, at which activist investors at a hedge fund led a campaign that resulted in securing three board seats. The SEC described CA100+’s role in supporting the hedge fund’s campaign but did not pursue enforcement action. The report states that the SEC issued it to put investors and asset managers on notice of the reporting obligations that can arise from organized engagement with portfolio companies.
• On 24 September 2026, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention responded to an Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. § 3516 note) complaint from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and agreed to update EPA public web pages that had stated for years that domestic manufacture and import of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) had been “phased out” in the United States. The revised wording acknowledges that quantities of PFOA may continue to be produced, imported, and used by companies that did not participate in EPA’s 2006–2015 PFOA Stewardship Program and that some uses of PFOS remain ongoing—a correction PEER had sought in light of continuing domestic PFOA production. 

Congressional Actions

• On 9 November 2026, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S. 5653) (BAAJA) - the permitting-reform bill introduced on 30 September 2026 and covered in our October edition - will likely face its first floor test at a Senate cloture vote. Beyond the core permitting reforms previously reported, the bill would provide cost recovery of 25 to 50% of total project costs where federal authorizations or permits in effect on or after 16 September 2026 are improperly revoked, rescinded, withdrawn, terminated, suspended, amended, or altered; amend the National Historic Preservation Act to set a defined-timeline historic-preservation consultation process (including 30-day response windows at each stage) that preserves a statutory consultation role for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and Indian tribes; and create a new FERC oversight mechanism under which states may refer a public utility for investigation of its local transmission planning, covering facilities sited and paid for entirely within that utility’s own territory, with a certified investigative team combining FERC staff and up to three state-appointed representatives. Available remedies include requiring changes to the utility’s planning processes, reducing its return on equity for local transmission facilities, eliminating the presumption of prudence for such facilities, a fine of up to $5,000,000 per facility (payable to the referring state) for imprudent facilities that financially harmed customers, or any other appropriate remedy.

• On 13 October 2026, the Make Data Centers Pay Act (H.R. 10809) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would bar utilities from passing along the incremental cost of serving large data center electric loads to other ratepayers, shifting that cost onto the data centers themselves. Under the bill, utilities may not allocate or recover any of the incremental cost of serving electric loads that are attributable to data centers or that equal or exceed 20 megawatts (MW) from any customer other than the load itself, while rates must be structured to recover a utility’s full incremental cost from the load even if that load’s service contract later terminates. It also conditions new or upgraded generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure built to serve a covered load on the load first posting financial assurances or contributions sufficient to cover the project’s cost. These protections would apply prospectively to loads interconnecting after enactment, while arrangements already approved by FERC or a state before that date would stay in effect.

State Actions

• On 23 October 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a complaint in Florida state court against a climate-risk data provider, alleging two counts under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. ch. 501, pt. II): (1) unfair and unconscionable practices and (2) deceptive practices. The action concerns the defendant’s property-level “Risk Factor” scores (1–10 grades for flood, wildfire, wind, heat, and air-quality risk), distributed through major residential real-estate listing platforms. The complaint challenges both the reliability of the scores and the provider’s representations about its methodology. It alleges that the provider promotes the scores as peer-reviewed and scientifically validated despite inconsistencies with FEMA flood-hazard maps and other federal data, and restricts access to the underlying methodology despite claims of transparency. The State also alleges that overstated risks reduce home sale prices, delay sales, and increase insurance costs, noting that major insurers and federal mortgage enterprises use the provider’s data in property-level assessments. The State seeks injunctive relief, a mandatory disclosure that the scores are subjective, disgorgement, statutory civil penalties, and attorney’s fees. The action parallels Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers’s substantially similar August 2026 suit against the same climate-risk data provider under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.
• On 20 October 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court denied a data center developer’s petition for a writ of mandamus to compel an Ohio village to continue reviewing its site plan for a project submitted just before the village banned new data center construction. The court held that, where a village has enacted a moratorium suspending its obligation to process data-center permit applications and conduct site-plan reviews, the village owes no clear legal duty to continue reviewing a pending site plan while the moratorium remains in effect. It further held that a developer’s right to have its project reviewed under the zoning law in effect before a regulatory change vests only once the developer has satisfied all legislative requirements for the permit sought. Because the developer here had not completed site-plan review or applied for a zoning permit, it had no vested right to application of the pre-moratorium ordinance. Separately, and without affecting that outcome, the court granted the developer’s unopposed request that the court take judicial notice of ordinances the village adopted after the case was filed.
• On 12 October 2026, California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) initial regulation implementing SB 253 and SB 261. The regulation took effect immediately, setting a 10 November 2026 deadline for the first reports of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions under SB 253. Separately, CARB’s guidance provides flexibility for the initial reporting year, allowing entities to submit existing annual reports containing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, data reported to other programs, or CARB’s optional template. Entities that were neither collecting nor planning to collect Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions information on or before 5 December 2024 may instead submit a statement of non-reporting on company letterhead. The regulation also clarifies which entities are covered: the revenue threshold is assessed using the lower of an entity’s revenues for its two preceding fiscal years, and “revenue” means “gross receipts” under California Revenue and Taxation Code section 25120(f)(2). It provides exemptions for certain entities, including tax-exempt nonprofit or charitable organizations, and establishes a framework for calculating, collecting, and enforcing annual fees under both statutes.
• On 7 October 2026, a large electric utility holding company announced that its two North Carolina utilities had reached a settlement with the North Carolina Public Staff (the independent agency representing utility customers), a group of major U.S. hyperscale technology companies, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, and the U.S. Department of Defense that would enhance existing customer protections against stranded costs from data center and other large-load growth in the state. Under the settlement, new large-load customers (contract demand of at least 50 MW with an 80% load factor - down from the current 100 MW threshold) that sign an electric service agreement after 1 June 2026 would be required to make nonrefundable upfront payments for grid facilities serving only that customer (e.g., substations), post upfront deposits and security guarantees for shared grid upgrades (e.g., transmission lines), and take service under a dedicated High Load Factor rate schedule. The agreement is subject to approval by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, with the company expecting a decision by mid-November 2026.
• On 30 September 2026, a New Jersey county filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey against several oil companies alleging that defendants have engaged in decades of climate deception that caused severe, ongoing damage to Middlesex County, including a rise in New Jersey’s annual temperatures, 60 recorded floods from coastal storms and extreme rainfall between 1996 and 2020 causing over $500 million in property damage, and four major hurricanes that together cost the County and its residents more than $600 million. The County alleges that one of the defendants, an oil advocacy group, organized and participated in deceptive advertising campaigns promoting climate disinformation, in coordination with the fossil fuel company defendants, targeted at both national and New Jersey audiences. The complaint asserts five causes of action: public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass against the fossil fuel company defendants, and negligence and violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act against all defendants. The suit is part of a growing trend of U.S. state and local climate-related consumer-deception litigation brought by state and local governments against major oil and gas companies on similar theories.
• On 21 September 2026, the governor of California signed seven bills into law targeting data centers’ heavy use of electricity, water, and land resources.
  • AB 1577 requires data center owners to report operational data—location, size, power and water usage effectiveness, total water consumption, and onsite generator fuel use—to a state commission, which must publish it annually in anonymized, aggregated form and assess load trends; the same data must be submitted to local land-use agencies when applying for a discretionary permit.
  • AB 2383 requires the Public Utilities Commission to create a separate rate classification for facilities interconnected under a retail transmission tariff at or above a Commission-set threshold (capped at 25 MW), obligating them to pay incremental generation costs for at least 10 years with usage-based minimums and ratepayer cost-allocation safeguards.
  • AB 2469 conditions permits for new or water-use-increasing data centers on a water scarcity plan, water supply assessment, and water use assessment, bars such projects within certain groundwater basins, and requires applicants to bear the full cost of necessary water infrastructure upgrades.
  • AB 2619 requires data centers to report water use, source, and volume to their water supplier and on business license applications, directs state agencies to develop water-efficiency guidelines, and requires their demand to be factored into urban water suppliers’ shortage and demand assessments.
  • SB 886 directs the Public Utilities Commission to create a special interconnection tariff for facilities with at least 75 MW of peak demand, requiring disclosure of duplicate interconnection applications, cost responsibility for triggered transmission upgrades, a 10-year early termination fee, and onsite zero-carbon storage covering at least four hours at half of forecasted peak demand.
  • SB 887 removes data centers from the California Environmental Quality Act’s ministerial-project and advanced-manufacturing exemptions, requiring full environmental review.
  • SB 1168 directs the Public Utilities Commission to assess rate structures ensuring data centers pay a reasonable share of transmission, distribution, and power-procurement costs, easing cost pressure on residential ratepayers, including those on low-income rate assistance.
• On 18 September 2026, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed an executive order facilitating the implementation of the Virginia Data Center Accountability Framework, which focuses on transparent community engagement, environmental protection, ratepayer affordability, clean energy and grid reliability, and workforce benefits. The executive order bans executive agencies from entering into nondisclosure agreements that would shield material information about proposed data center projects from public disclosure; excludes new data center projects with 25 MW or more of anticipated peak demand from state site-readiness and expedited-permitting programs; and creates a tiered certification program to recognize responsible data center developers based on energy, water, noise, workforce, and community-benefit criteria. The order also directs the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to expedite rulemaking on data center noise standards and on designating “cooling water scarcity areas,” and it directs the Virginia Office of the Chief Energy Officer to pursue cost-allocation reforms.

ESG Litigation

• On 20 October 2026, a coalition of renewable-energy developers and industry groups filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to enforce its 6 August 2026 preliminary injunction against the Department of Defense’s (DoD) de facto freeze of statutory reviews of proposed wind-energy projects under 10 U.S.C. § 183a for potential impacts on military operations and readiness. The coalition argues DoD still has not resumed review but has instead imposed sweeping new vetting requirements (including personnel, supply-chain, and cybersecurity vetting) that are unrelated to the radar-interference concerns originally cited, refused to approve projects with long-pending mitigation agreements, proposed mitigation models giving DoD unilateral termination authority, and continued missing statutory deadlines - perpetuating the delays the injunction ordered DoD to end. The coalition seeks enforcement of the injunction and orders compelling DoD to complete reviews on schedule.
• On 19 October 2026, a council of chiefs from American Samoa’s Manu’a Islands, Fa’asao Amerika Samoa, and the Conservation Council for Hawai’i, together with legal counsel, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii against the Marine Minerals Administration (MMA) and the Interior Secretary challenging the MMA’s same-day Final Leasing Notice for Pacific Mineral Lease Sale PACM-1—a 19 November 2026 auction of two deep-sea mining leases covering more than 31 million acres of seabed off American Samoa. The plaintiffs allege that MMA lacks statutory authority to conduct the sale because OCSLA does not authorize mineral leasing in U.S. territories (including American Samoa), that threshold treaty requirements for mineral leasing in American Samoa have not been satisfied, that the agency is violating its own leasing regulations, and that MMA failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the deep-sea mining the sale would enable; they seek a declaration that the sale is unlawful and vacatur of the final leasing notice.
• On 16 October 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge by the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma to the EPA’s approval of Oklahoma’s request to extend the state’s administration of federal environmental regulatory programs into Indian Country, holding that Section 10211 of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), a “midnight rider” provision allowing Oklahoma to regulate environmental programs in Indian Country subject to EPA approval, remains in effect and unambiguous. Writing for the majority, the court rejected the tribe’s argument that the provision expired in 2009, holding that the statutory text “forecloses” that interpretation and that EPA acted appropriately in granting Oklahoma’s request to administer more than two dozen programs on tribal lands.
• On 8 October 2026, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s lawsuit accusing major energy companies of misleading the public in connection with their investments in alternative energy and their gasoline products’ effects. On the “product greenwashing” claim, the panel held that, although the companies’ advertisements claimed that their “improved” gasoline products could produce fewer emissions, the average consumer would not reasonably believe that using those products would significantly decrease emissions. The lawsuit had been dismissed in January 2025. On the separate “corporate greenwashing” claim, the panel affirmed dismissal because the city did not tie the companies’ statements about investments in renewable or alternative energy to the sale of any goods or services to consumers. The city did not identify any precedent establishing a consumer protection law violation based on corporate public relations or branding statements unconnected to the sale of consumer goods or services.
• On 6 October 2026, three Colorado landowners that own neighboring parcels in the Great Western Industrial Park in Windsor, Colorado, sued the Weld County Board of County Commissioners and a data-center developer in Colorado state court, challenging the Board’s 9 September 2026 “use by special review” approval of the first (27.5 MW) phase of the developer’s proposed 200-MW, four-phase data-center campus. The plaintiffs allege that the Board exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the developer failed to demonstrate adequate long-term water or electricity supply, the project’s own noise studies showed exceedances of the county’s decibel limit even with proposed sound barriers, commissioners relied on information gathered during undisclosed private visits to other data centers in violation of state public-meeting requirements, and one commissioner publicly advocated for the project before approval. The plaintiffs seek vacatur of the approval and injunctive relief, and note that the developer continued construction despite three county stop-work orders before agreeing in August 2026 to halt work in exchange for accelerated hearing scheduling.
• On 5 October 2026, a D.C. Circuit panel denied youth petitioners’ request to stay the EPA’s final rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and associated motor-vehicle emissions standards while their legal challenge proceeds, in consolidated litigation. The panel held that the youth petitioners, who had argued a stay would prevent nearly a billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions pending review, had not shown the requisite likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary relief. The same order also denied other challengers’ requests to further delay briefing in the case, keeping the broader litigation - which includes petitions from a coalition of states and environmental and public health groups, and other petitioners - on its existing schedule. The denial leaves EPA’s rescission in full effect while the underlying challenge to the endangerment finding repeal is litigated on the merits.
• On 2 October 2026, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general (including the District of Columbia) and four cities, and separately a coalition of environmental and consumer-advocacy groups, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for review of NHTSA’s final rule weakening corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, alleging it is arbitrary and capricious and violates the APA and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by abandoning Congress’s “maximum feasible” mandate and ignoring the electric vehicles already in the national fleet; both coalitions seek vacatur. On the same date, a coalition of environmental and consumer-advocacy groups filed a parallel petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the rollback on substantially similar grounds. The challenged rule, signed on 25 September 2026, replaces the prior 2031 model-year fleetwide average target of 50.4 miles per gallon with roughly 34.9 miles per gallon.
• On 1 October 2026, a coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James - 21 states and the District of Columbia, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and several cities - petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of EPA’s September 2026 final rule repealing most of the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards for power-plant greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act Section 111, which EPA grounded in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). The coalition alleges the rescission was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider reasonable alternatives or adequately calculate the repeal’s costs, and seeks to strike down the rollback. It also filed a notice of intent to sue EPA for failing to regulate emissions from existing natural gas-fired “peaker” plants under Section 111.
• On 15 September 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an EPA May 2024 rule restricting use of methylene chloride - a chemical associated with asphyxiation risk, cardiovascular effects, and elevated cancer risk - rejecting (1) the EPA’s “whole chemical” approach to risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), holding the agency must instead assess risk on a use-by-use basis; and (2) the agency’s refusal to assume personal protective equipment use when evaluating risk. Commentators have drawn a parallel to the Fifth Circuit’s 1991 decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, which vacated the EPA’s near-ban on asbestos and affected new TSCA chemical safeguards for years until Congress amended the statute in 2016. TSCA rule challenges are pending in other circuits and the EPA has proposed revising its risk evaluation framework rule that oversees the agency’s evaluation process.

DEI Developments

• On 14 October 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland declined to find Executive Order 14398, which governs diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities among federal contractors, and the related procurement guidance implementing it unconstitutional. The court read the Executive Order (EO) narrowly, holding that it does not stop contractors from continuing compliant inclusion programs and prohibits only “intentional discrimination” as defined in current federal antidiscrimination law. Under this narrow reading, the EO addresses only conduct related to contract performance and distinguishes “disparate treatment” from permissible conduct related to ethnicity or race, leaving open other questions under the APA for future challenge.
• On 22 September 2026, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) published a proposed rule, which was open for notice and comment through 19 October 2026, as part of the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO), to formally incorporate into the FAR the requirements of EO 14398, which directs agencies to end DEI-related preferencing in contracting and requires contractors to certify they do not operate programs promoting DEI in violation of federal antidiscrimination law. Proposed revisions include: (1) implementing EO 14398 in FAR Part 9’s suspension and debarment framework, allowing suspension or debarment of contractors found to operate unlawful DEI programs; (2) deleting FAR Part 27.4 (Rights in Data and Copyrights); (3) removing 33 clauses in FAR Part 47; and (4) renumbering and adding patent-related clauses in FAR Part 52.
• On 8 September 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disclosed that it filed a federal court action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to enforce an administrative subpoena after the City and County of San Francisco failed to comply. The subpoena arose from a Title VII charge alleging a former employee suffered disparate treatment and constructive discharge after objecting to mandatory DEI trainings she claimed were discriminatory, and sought information on employee attendance at those trainings and related complaints. The EEOC stated it will use all tools available to obtain evidence when employers withhold information necessary to its investigations.

International Developments

• On 16 October 2026, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair Jim Skea suspended the Panel’s 65th Plenary Session in Addis Ababa without agreement on publication timelines for the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7) or the Panel’s 2027 budget. Roughly 30 governments back a 2028 publication to inform the Paris Agreement’s second Global Stocktake at COP33, while Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China, and Kenya are pushing for a later date. The dispute proceeds without any U.S. government role: following the administration’s January 2026 withdrawal of the United States from the IPCC and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the U.S. no longer nominates AR7 authors, funds U.S. participation, or attends the plenary sessions where these consensus decisions are made, though U.S.-affiliated scientists continue serving as authors through independent channels. The Panel is expected to reconvene before year-end to resolve both issues, ahead of the COP31 summit.
• On 2 October 2026, the G7 announced a pledge to coordinate the release of 100 million barrels of oil, with diesel deployment front-loaded within the first 20 days and the full release expected to take four months through the International Energy Agency (IEA). The G7 also committed to coordinate member countries’ refinery maintenance schedules to avoid simultaneous capacity shutdowns, encourage countries with significant refining capacity generally to boost production of refined products (particularly diesel), and refrain from imposing export controls on energy products traded among themselves. The statement reaffirmed the G7’s condemnation of Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz and its intent to maintain existing sanctions on Russia while coordinating with the IEA to limit spillover effects on fuel, gas, and other commodity markets.
• Also on 2 October 2026, following a two-day Group of 20 (G20) trade ministerial meeting in Milwaukee, the trade ministers of the United States, Argentina, and Mexico backed a joint statement on eliminating importation of goods created through forced labor. The ministers called for (1) continued country-level import prohibitions and enforcement and (2) international cooperation. The G20 failed to reach consensus on the broader statement, as well as on a separate proposed statement addressing structural excess capacity and production. However, the ministers did agree on a statement condemning the “weaponization of food through coercive trade actions.” In July, the United States had imposed tiered Section 301 tariffs on 60 economies, with each economy’s rate set according to the extent to which it prohibits and enforces against the importation of forced-labor goods.

• Energy security and infrastructure investment: access not reserves

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

• Deconstructing MACH Energy v DAMSHEG – what the Australian High Court really said about scope 3 emissions

• Environmental claims in sport: What the EU’s EmpCo Directive means for clubs, sponsors and broadcasters - LawInSport (registration required) – the article is based on our previous blog post: EmpCo on the horizon: How sports organisations can stay ahead of the game and not fall foul of the new EU rules on greenwashing