September 24, 2025 | By: Jeff Haughey and Jeni Stallings

ExxonMobil has announced a new shareholder voting initiative aimed at increasing participation by retail investors in annual meetings. The program enables shareholders to give standing instructions to vote in line with the company’s board recommendations, offering a simplified and more accessible proxy voting option for retail holders.

This development encourages voting by retail shareholders, who have historically low participation rates in corporate governance decisions. ExxonMobil’s approach may serve as a model for others looking to increase voting engagement with their retail shareholders.

The Problem: Low Retail Voting Rates

Public companies in the U.S. routinely face the challenge of low shareholder engagement in proxy voting, especially from retail shareholders. While retail participation in the equity markets has grown substantially in recent years, studies consistently show that fewer than 25% of retail shareholders cast votes at annual meetings.

ExxonMobil’s own experience reflects this broader trend. Despite retail shareholders holding nearly 40% of the company’s outstanding shares at its most recent annual meeting, the company did not hear from 75% of retail voters. Through shareholder engagement, ExxonMobil learned that many individual investors feel overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of proxy materials and are looking for simpler ways to participate meaningfully in corporate governance.

The Solution: Standing Board-Aligned Voting Instructions

In response, ExxonMobil developed a Retail Voting Program allowing retail investors to voluntarily authorize the company to vote their shares in accordance with the board’s recommendations for each meeting of shareholders. Participating shareholders will be given the opportunity to elect their standing voting instruction to apply to either (a) all matters; or (b) all matters except contested director elections or any acquisition, merger or divestiture transaction that legally would require the approval of company shareholders. Separately, retail shareholders will be able to opt out of the Retail Voting Program at no cost or override their standing instruction by voting at the meeting.

SEC No Action Letter

In a letter dated September 15, 2025, the SEC confirmed that it would not recommend enforcement action under Exchange Act Rules 14a-4(d)(2) or 14a-4(d)(3) if ExxonMobil proceeds with the Retail Voting Program as described. This is significant because proxies that grant authority to vote for more than one meeting are generally prohibited by the Exchange Act Rules. In making its final determination, the SEC relied on several key representations by ExxonMobil, including:

• The program is available to all retail shareholders, whether registered holders or beneficial owners through intermediaries.
• Shareholders may cancel or override standing instructions at any time and at no cost.
• Participants will receive annual reminders outside the proxy solicitation period.
• The program will not restrict access to proxy materials or other voting mechanisms.
• The company will provide full disclosure in its proxy statements and on its website.

Implications for Public Companies

Public companies with a substantial percentage of retail shareholders may want to explore whether a standing instruction voting program can provide a scalable, transparent way to improve governance engagement without creating new burdens for shareholders or boards.

Companies that plan to adopt retail voting programs with the same features as ExxonMobil’s do not need to seek their own SEC no-action relief letter, but they are encouraged, although not required, to speak to the SEC before proceeding with their own program. If a company wants to adopt a program before its 2026 annual meeting, it will need to coordinate the timing of enrollment invitations with its transfer agent and vote processing agent well in advance of program implementation and consider its meeting calendar and agenda.

State law should also be considered. Companies that do not wish to be first movers may want to wait and see how similar programs are timed, implemented, disclosed, and maintained as well as the cost associated with such programs.

Jeffrey T. Haughey and Jeni Stallings are attorneys in GableGotwals’ Corporate & Securities Law Group. For help in establishing a similar retail voting program, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Corporate & Securities Group.

Jeffrey T. Haughey
918-595-4837
jhaughey@gablelaw.com

Jeni Stallings
918-595-4862
jstallings@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

September 10, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke and Tyler A. Self

In its recent decision in SSM Litigation Group v. EPA (published September 5, 2025), the D.C. Circuit struck down EPA’s 2023 rescission of the long-standing Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V “emergency affirmative defense,” holding that the agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. For three decades, Title V permits contained a narrow defense shielding operators from liability for excess emissions caused by sudden and unforeseeable emergencies, provided the facility was otherwise properly operated and took reasonable steps to minimize emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rescinded this defense in 2023, reasoning that it unlawfully infringed on judicial authority to impose civil penalties and rendered emission limits non-continuous under the CAA. The D.C. Circuit disagreed, drawing a sharp distinction between impermissible limits on judicial remedies and permissible defenses to liability, and holding that an affirmative defense does not undermine the Act’s requirement for continuous emission standards. The decision restores an important safeguard to regulated entities, clarifies the limits of EPA’s authority when it comes to affirmative defenses and judicial remedies, and underscores the need for agencies to provide legal reasoning and policy rationales when rescinding entrenched regulatory provisions.

Key Takeaways

Emergency Defense Restored

• The D.C. Circuit unanimously restored the Title V Emergency Affirmative Defense, which EPA eliminated in 2023, providing facilities a crucial legal tool to defend against Clean Air Act (“CAA”) violations caused by unforeseeable emergency events.

EPA Authority Limited

• The court reinforced that EPA may not eliminate defenses to liability by recasting them as unlawful intrusions on judicial penalty authority or as “non-continuous” exemptions. The distinction between liability defenses and remedy limitations is central to the decision.

Continuity Requirement Clarified

• The decision makes clear that the Clean Air Act’s requirement for “continuous” emissions standards does not bar the use of affirmative defenses; standards always remain enforceable, even if liability may be avoided in narrow circumstances.

Regulatory Durability Requires Policy Support

• Because EPA offered no independent policy justification for its rescission, the court had little difficulty finding the rule legally defective. Agencies must pair legal reasoning with policy rationale when undoing decades-old programs.

Compliance Strategy Implications

• Facilities should review and update, if needed, compliance plans and reporting protocols (including pre-submission review of Title V deviation reports), Title V permit terms, and enforcement defenses in light of the revived emergency defense, while also recognizing that courts remain the ultimate arbiters of whether the defense applies in a given case.

Background: EPA’s Controversial 2023 Rule Change

For over three decades, EPA regulations provided facilities with an affirmative defense for CAA Title V Permit violations caused by emergency circumstances. This defense allowed facilities to avoid liability for excess emissions during “sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God.”

To qualify for the defense, facilities had to demonstrate that: (1) an emergency actually occurred; (2) the facility was being properly operated; and (3) all reasonable steps were taken to minimize excess emissions during the emergency.

The regulations defined an emergency as “any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God,” that “causes the source to exceed a technology-based emission limitation under the permit, due to unavoidable increases in emissions attributable to the emergency.” 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(g)(1) (2022). If the emergency defense applied, a permittee would not be found in violation of the Clean Air Act for exceeding emissions limitations.

In 2023, EPA rescinded this long-standing defense in a final rule, arguing it was unlawful on two grounds. First, it encroached on the judiciary’s authority to impose civil penalties; and second, it functioned as an impermissible exemption that rendered emission standards non-continuous in violation of the CAA. The rescission was particularly significant for oil & gas operations, power plants, chemical factories, and other heavy industry sources facing inherent risks of equipment failures, natural disasters, and other emergency events causing temporary emission exceedances despite proper operation and maintenance.

The D.C. Circuit’s Decision: SSM Litigation Group v. EPA

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Neomi Rao comprehensively rejected both of EPA’s legal justifications for eliminating the emergency defense. The court’s analysis provides important clarity on the scope of EPA’s regulatory authority and the nature of affirmative defenses under environmental law.

Affirmative Defense v. Remedial Limitation

The court distinguished between two types of regulatory “defenses”:

• Complete Affirmative Defenses that provide a total defense to liability (i.e., the Title V Emergency Defense).
• Partial Defenses, which only limit available remedies after a violation is established.

Citing its 2024 decision in Environmental Committee of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group v. EPA, the court emphasized that complete affirmative defenses are permissible because they address the “antecedent question of liability” rather than constraining judicial remedial authority. 94 F.4th 77 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

Defense v. Exemption

The court also rejected EPA’s argument that the emergency defense impermissibly functioned as an exemption from emission standards. The court explained the distinction:

An affirmative defense allows a defendant to avoid liability, but it does not alter the underlying legal requirements. The very concept of an affirmative defense assumes that a legal standard remains in force, because otherwise there would be no claim—and no need for an affirmative defense.

(Internal citations omitted). This confirms that emission standards remain “continuous” even when an affirmative defense is available, because the standards themselves are never suspended or lifted.

What This Means for Title V Permittees

The decision restores a critical defense for Title V facilities facing CAA enforcement actions or citizen suits arising from emergency-related emission exceedances. This is particularly important for oil & gas operations, power generation, chemical manufacturing, refineries, and metals production.

While the emergency defense provides important protection, facilities should remember that it requires strict compliance with specific criteria: the event must be sudden and reasonably unforeseeable; the event must be beyond the facility’s control; the facility must be properly operated during the event; and all reasonable steps must be taken to minimize excess emissions.

To support ongoing compliance, confirm whether your Title V permit incorporates or references the emergency affirmative defense language; ensure operational protocols include a method of clear documentation of emergency events and steps to minimize emissions; and ensure plant operators are up to date with respect to emergency protocols.* EPA is reviewing the decision for potential appeal, though it is not yet clear whether EPA will appeal.

For questions on how this decision may affect your specific operations or compliance obligations, please contact Tim Sowecke, Tyler Self, or other members of GableGotwals’ Environmental and Natural Resources Law Team.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

* EPA’s potential appeal would go to the Supreme Court, given the D.C. Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over nationally applicable EPA rules.

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

August 2025 (Volume 1, Edition 3)

In this edition of GableGotwals’ PFAS Pulse, we track the latest developments in per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) regulation and litigation. Key developments include:

• EPA announces rollback of portions of PFAS drinking water standards and extends compliance deadlines to 2031.
• Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) reporting for manufacturers/importers delayed to 2026-27.
• Litigation challenging PFAS regulations heats up under Trump Administration following Supreme Court limits on agency authority.
• New Jersey secures record $2B PFAS settlement, setting precedent for state enforcement and damages.
• EPA’s latest PFAS occurrence data shows significant detection rates and co-occurrence in public water systems.

By way of background, PFAS are a broad class of synthetic compounds defined by the exceptionally strong carbon-fluorine bond, which imparts heat resistance and surfactant properties that repel water, oil, and grease. These same qualities make PFAS persistent, highly mobile in soil and groundwater, and in some cases bioaccumulative and toxic, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” After more than a decade of groundwork, in 2024, EPA’s PFAS program marked a milestone by designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) and adopting national drinking water standards for six PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).

In 2025, PFAS regulation remains a focus under the current Trump Administration and Administrator Zeldin’s EPA, however, regulatory momentum has slowed: SDWA compliance deadlines have been extended, several SDWA standards are slated for rescission, Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) reporting deadlines have been pushed back, and a new technical-assistance program has been announced to assist public water systems with addressing PFAS issues. Meanwhile, litigation over EPA’s SDWA and CERCLA PFAS rules unfolds in a post-Loper Bright landscape requiring clear congressional authority for major regulatory actions. While federal enforcement slows, states are ramping up pressure. New Jersey recently secured a record $2 billion settlement from PFAS manufacturers for state contamination. For clients, these developments highlight the importance of proactive PFAS risk identification and management across real estate portfolios, supply chains, manufacturing operations, product formulation, and waste management practices.

GableGotwals’ Environmental and Natural Resources team continues to partner with clients to anticipate regulatory shifts, evaluate compliance exposure, and develop legally sound, business-aligned strategies to ensure operational continuity while managing PFAS-related risks.

EPA Announces Partial Rollback of PFAS Drinking Water Standards

On May 14, 2025, EPA announced upcoming revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Standards for PFAS under the SDWA. EPA stated it will retain the current maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”) of four parts per trillion (“ppt”) for PFOA and PFOS but will extend the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. EPA also stated it will rescind the existing MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (“GenX”), as well as the Hazard Index (“HI”) for mixtures of those compounds with PFBS, and will reevaluate the regulatory determinations underpinning those standards. EPA plans to issue a proposal for these changes in Fall of 2025 and finalize them by Spring of 2026. This shift in position is consistent with EPA’s revised strategy in ongoing litigation challenging the rule, see below for litigation discussion. Note, these changes are pending formal rulemaking, and until EPA adopts a final rule, the original 2029 deadline under the 2024 rule remains effective.

TSCA PFAS Reporting Delayed Again

On May 13, 2025, EPA published an interim final rule (effective May 13, 2025) again revising the reporting timeline for manufacturers and importers of PFAS under Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). The new timeline delays the start of the data submission period to April 13, 2026, and the end date to October 13, 2026, with an extended deadline of April 13, 2027, for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers. The underlying rule, finalized in October 2023, requires manufacturers (including importers) of PFAS in any year between 2011 and 2022 to submit specified data on volumes, exposure, environmental impacts, and health effects. EPA determined the delay is necessary to allow time for development of the reporting system and to complete review of public comments on possible substantive amendments to the rule. This adjustment provides EPA an opportunity to finalize any such modifications before the reporting window opens.

Litigation Challenging SDWA and CERCLA PFAS Regs: New EPA Strategy Post-Loper Bright

On July 22, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion to lift the stay in American Water Works Ass’n v. EPA, the consolidated challenge to EPA’s April 2024 SDWA National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFAS. That rule established MCLs for PFOA and PFOS individually and for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and certain mixtures collectively. The District of Columbia and 17 states filed an amicus brief supporting EPA, asserting that the standards comport with the SDWA’s health mandate and were lawfully promulgated. Petitioners, including major industry, manufacturing, and chemical trade groups, argue that EPA lacked statutory authority to adopt the PFAS MCLs and that its cost-benefit analysis was deficient, positions consistent with the Trump Administration’s narrower view of agency power. After obtaining multiple stays earlier in 2025 to review the rule, EPA announced in May it would retain the PFOA and PFOS MCLs but rescind standards for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and the hazard index for mixtures, positioning the Agency to defend a narrowed rule in the litigation. The parties have agreed to a September 10 deadline for EPA to declare its litigation posture and a September 17 deadline for proposing a revised briefing schedule.

By contrast, litigation over EPA’s May 2024 designation of PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA in Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA remains stayed through August 18, 2025, while EPA continues its rule review “within the broader context of EPA’s comprehensive strategy to address PFOA and PFOS.” The petitioners, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that EPA exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the designation. Both the SDWA and CERCLA PFAS rules now face heightened judicial scrutiny in light of recent Supreme Court precedents, including Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which curtail judicial deference to agency interpretations and limit agency action on matters of “major economic and political significance” absent express congressional authorization. These cases sit at the intersection of evolving PFAS policy and a shifting administrative law landscape.

Historic $2 Billion PFAS Settlement in New Jersey

In a record-setting environmental enforcement action, the State of New Jersey announced on August 4, 2025, a proposed settlement of up to $2 billion with DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva. This represents the largest environmental recovery ever secured by a U.S. state. The agreement resolves decades of alleged PFAS contamination tied to manufacturing operations across the state and establishes a long-term framework for both compensation and remediation. Under the deal, the companies will pay $875 million in damages over 25 years, apportioned among Chemours (50%), DuPont (35.5%), and Corteva (14.5%). In parallel, the settlement creates a $1.2 billion cleanup fund to address four heavily contaminated DuPont industrial sites: Chamber Works, Parlin, Pompton Lakes Works, and Repauno. It also earmarks $125 million in damages for natural resource injuries. Notably, DuPont will also acquire $150 million in insurance rights from Chemours to cover PFAS liabilities.

The settlement structure reflects a deliberate blend of financial security and enforcement leverage. A $475 million reserve fund is included to safeguard cleanup obligations if any party defaults or faces insolvency, ensuring that remediation does not stall. While the companies do not admit liability, the agreement’s scale and explicit site-specific commitments underscore the state’s aggressive posture on legacy PFAS pollution. The proposal now moves to a public comment period beginning in September, followed by court review, a procedural step that will formalize one of the most consequential state-level environmental settlements in U.S. history.

The New Jersey PFAS settlement marks a watershed moment in environmental enforcement, setting a high financial and legal precedent that will likely reverberate across other states grappling with similar legacy contamination. The sheer scale of nearly $2 billion in combined damages and cleanup funding underscores increasing state willingness to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for long-term PFAS harms, signaling aggressive, multi-decade remediation frameworks and substantial monetary recoveries are attainable. The detailed apportionment among Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva also illustrates nuanced liability allocation that other jurisdictions may adopt or challenge. Moreover, the inclusion of insurance rights transfers reflects sophisticated risk management strategies that states and defendants might negotiate moving forward. Collectively, this settlement sets a benchmark not only in financial terms but also in the scope and structure of remediation efforts, likely encouraging more states to pursue comprehensive PFAS litigation and settlements while shaping corporate approaches to legacy chemical liabilities nationwide.

Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule PFAS Data Released:

In July 2025, EPA released the ninth dataset under the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (“UCMR 5”) covering 29 PFAS and lithium in public water systems (“PWSs”) nationwide. Required by the SDWA every five years, UCMR monitoring collects occurrence data for unregulated contaminants to inform potential future regulations. UCMR 5, published in December 2021, has gathered sampling data since January 2023 from a nationally representative dataset from large, medium, and small PWSs. The current data release represents 83% of expected results and provides a detailed snapshot of contaminant prevalence in drinking water while comparing results to the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”) established in EPA’s April 2024 PFAS drinking water rule.

Based on the partial results, an estimated 8.5% of PWSs have average concentrations above at least one PFAS MCL, with exceedance rates highest for large systems. PFOS and PFOA are the most frequent MCL exceedances, while other regulated PFAS, including HFPO-DA (“GenX”), PFHxS, and PFNA, exceed standards less often. The data also reveals PFAS co-occurrence, with 66% of locations that report at least one PFAS at or above the UCMR 5 minimum reporting level also showing multiple PFAS at or above those levels. Lithium results are also notable, with 27.1% of small PWSs (serving 10,000 or fewer people) and 23.9% of large PWSs (greater than 10,000) above EPA’s non-regulatory health reference level.

As discussed above, these findings arrive as EPA moves to extend the PFOA and PFOS compliance deadlines and rescind certain PFAS standards as part of the partial rollback of the April 2024 rule. While UCMR 5 data cannot alone determine compliance, utilities may use it to meet initial monitoring requirements, and the results are already shaping public health discussion and state enforcement strategies, see New Jersey’s $2B PFAS settlement, discussed above. With significant detection rates and regulatory requirements in flux, the UCMR 5 data offers an early but critical tool for shaping regulatory determinations, funding priorities, and risk management strategies.

Conclusion

As PFAS regulation and litigation continue to evolve amidst shifting federal policies and heightened judicial scrutiny, stakeholders must remain vigilant in monitoring these developments. The New Jersey settlement’s unprecedented scale and strategic design signal a new era of aggressive state-level enforcement and innovative risk management, underscoring how proactive, comprehensive PFAS risk assessment and mitigation are essential for navigating the complex legal and regulatory landscape ahead. The UCMR 5 data demonstrates the prevalence of certain PFAS in public water systems nationwide and signals that PFAS will continue to be a priority for drinking water regulation. For clients, aligning business operations with emerging PFAS standards and enforcement trends is critical for managing liability, ensuring compliance, and safeguarding long-term operational sustainability.

Thank you for reading this edition of PFAS Pulse. Feel free to reach out to GableGotwals’ Environmental and Natural Resources team with any questions.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

July 31, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke, Win Colbert, and Tyler A. Self

Major developments in federal climate policy emerged this week from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). First, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed repealing the 2009 greenhouse gas (“GHG”) endangerment finding, the legal foundation for federal climate regulation of vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas sector. Closely following the announcement, EPA published an interim final rule extending key compliance deadlines under the Clean Air Act’s (“CAA”) New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) Subparts OOOOb/c for the oil and gas industry. Together, these actions underscore a significant shift in federal climate regulation, with immediate implications for regulated sectors and long-term implications for federal climate strategy.

Repeal of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

On July 29, 2025, Administrator Zeldin unveiled a proposed rule to repeal the agency’s landmark 2009 endangerment finding that GHGs “threaten public health and welfare,” along with all downstream vehicle emissions standards based on that finding. In its preamble, EPA offers three alternative legal rationales for repeal: (1) that Section 202(a) of the CAA never authorized climate‑driven standards; (2) that the original science “unreasonably analyzed” GHG harms; and (3) that no available vehicle technology can meaningfully curb global‑scale climate risks without imposing greater public health harms.

Administrator Zeldin announced this pivotal move at an auto dealership in Indiana, joined by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Indiana Governor Mike Braun, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, U.S. Representative Jim Baird (R-IN-04), Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources Suzanne Jaworowski, and the Indiana Motor Truck Association. Following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA will accept public comments until September 21, 2025, with a final rule anticipated by the end of 2025.

Key Impacts on Power, Oil & Gas, and Utilities

Power-Sector Rules: The endangerment finding underpins CAA Section 111 standards for both new and existing power plants. Its removal would strip—or at least severely limit—the EPA’s legal foundation for future source-specific carbon limits (e.g., clean-energy performance standards), injecting regulatory uncertainty into long-term resource planning.

Oil & Gas Methane Controls: Current leak-detection and flaring restrictions hinge on GHG pollutant status. Repeal of the finding could delay or dismantle these federal requirements (e.g., New Source Performance Standards OOOOb/c). This would reduce near-term capital expenditure, but companies must still grapple with robust state-level rules, investor ESG mandates, and potential lawsuits asserting continued liability for methane emissions.

Utility Capital Planning: Many utilities embed GHG-reduction forecasts in budgets for renewables, storage, and grid hardening. A rollback may lower projected compliance costs and reshape Integrated Resource Planning (“IRP”), but could undermine access to low-cost, “green” financing and expose companies to reputational risk amid market-driven decarbonization.

The proposed rule marks a fundamental shift in EPA’s climate authority, potentially chilling federal climate action while amplifying the role of state regulation, markets, and private commitments. Stakeholders should track the rule’s progress, recalibrate compliance roadmaps, and weigh engagement in EPA’s rulemaking docket to protect interests.

Extension of NSPS Quad Ob/c Compliance Deadlines

On July 31, 2025, EPA published its interim final rule, effective immediately, extending certain compliance deadlines under the CAA’s NSPS Subparts OOOOb/c, applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the crude oil and natural gas sector.

The rule provides an 18-month extension for key requirements related to control devices, equipment leaks, storage vessels, process controllers, and covers/closed vent systems, including the requirement for continuous pilot flames on flares and enclosed combustion devices (“ECDs”) and corresponding alarm systems triggered by flame outages. For continuous monitoring of the “vent gas net heating value” (“NHV”) of flares and enclosed combustion control devices, the extended deadline is 120 days after publication.

It also delays by 18 months implementation of the Super-Emitter Program — the third-party methane detection and response program to identify large emission events from oil and gas facilities using remote sensing technologies. EPA cites the need to review the underlying technical data. During the extension, the agency will pause review of technology approval requests under the program.

In addition, the rule extends by 18 months the deadline for states to submit state implementation plans (“SIPs”) under Subpart OOOOc, moving the original March 9, 2026, deadline to September 2027.

EPA invoked the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) “good cause” exception to bypass notice-and-comment, citing urgent feasibility concerns raised by stakeholders regarding technology deployment and related compliance and enforcement concerns. We previously examined issues related to the use of the “good cause” exception in Fast-Tracking Deregulation: The Risks of Bypassing Notice and Comment (May 12, 2025), available here. Still, EPA is providing for post-promulgation comments, due by September 2, 2025, and challenges must be filed in the D.C. Circuit by September 29, 2025.

Conclusion and Takeaways

Taken together, EPA’s proposed repeal of the endangerment finding and its extension of NSPS compliance deadlines mark a profound shift in the federal climate regulatory landscape. By questioning the legal and scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases, EPA is poised to narrow its own authority under the CAA. Stakeholders, particularly in regulated industries, should closely monitor these developments, as these changes will impact compliance planning, capital investment strategies, and risk management considerations.

GableGotwals attorneys Tim Sowecke, Win Colbert, and Tyler Self stand ready to assist clients in monitoring developments, crafting effective comments, and adapting compliance strategies. Our Environmental & Natural Resources Law and Administrative & Regulatory Law practice groups would welcome the opportunity to support your team through each phase of this evolving regulatory landscape.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Win Colbert
346-200-6439
wcolbert@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 23, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke and Tyler A. Self

The Clean Air Act’s (CAA) New Source Performance Standards’ (NSPS) Subpart OOOOb applies to new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas facilities as of December 6, 2022. It targets methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from operations such as well sites, centralized production facilities, compressor stations, and storage facilities. The rule officially took effect on May 7, 2024.

In March, EPA Administrator Zeldin announced plans to reconsider Subparts OOOOb (for new sources) and OOOOc (for existing sources), aligning with the Trump administration’s deregulatory posture and pro-fossil fuel policy direction. However, OOOOb remains in effect. The first annual reporting deadline is August 5, 2025, covering the compliance period from May 7, 2024, to May 7, 2025. The reporting template is available at EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDI).

Key OOOOb requirements include:

• Leak detection and repair. Frequent monitoring of fugitive emissions using Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) or Method 21 with repairs generally required within 30 days.
• Equipment standards. Enhanced control technologies for pneumatic controllers, pumps, and storage vessels.
• Associated gas flaring and venting. Prohibition on routine venting and flaring must meet combustion efficiency standards.
• Recordkeeping and reporting. Operators must document monitoring, repairs, and compliance status. Certain malfunctions or deviations may require prompt EPA notification. Annual reports must be submitted through CEDI.

Judicial Review Landscape

EPA’s approach to reviewing or rolling back Subpart OOOOb remains uncertain. Under the Clean Air Act, Section 307 provides a distinct procedural framework for revision, overriding the general rulemaking and judicial review of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Section 307 mandates detailed rulemaking procedures, including reasoned explanations, disclosure of advisory materials, and formal responses to significant public comments, and imposes strict limitations on judicial review. This section will be a lodestar for the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda regarding Subpart OOOOb.

Further, many of EPA’s other planned rollbacks, such as revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the revision of NSPS for Oil & Gas facilities, and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), are also subject to Section 307’s stringent requirements. Recent Supreme Court decisions in Oklahoma v. EPA and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC underscore the importance of Section 307’s venue and procedural rules in shaping regulatory litigation.

In Oklahoma v. EPA, the Court held that EPA’s disapproval of state air quality plans (or SIPs) constituted regionally applicable actions subject to review in regional circuits—not the D.C. Circuit. The ruling preserves forum choice for states and regulated entities and emphasizes that challenges to disaggregated state actions must rely on fact-intensive records, not generalized policy arguments.

Conversely, in Calumet, the Court clarified that when EPA’s rationale reflects a uniform, nationwide policy, such as a categorical reinterpretation of a regulatory term, that action must be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit. The Court’s analysis emphasized that venue turns not merely on the geographic scope of an agency’s action, but also on whether the rationale applies uniformly across jurisdictions.

These rulings will have direct implications for any future revisions, or challenges, to Subpart OOOOb. The structure and rationale of EPA’s forthcoming rulemaking documents will be critical in their adoption or vacatur. If stakeholders seek to challenge these revisions, which is all but guaranteed, they must analyze whether the EPA grounds its changes in nationwide scope or state/region-specific findings. This will directly influence both litigation strategy and the available forum.

Navigating Forward

Regardless of impending changes to Subpart OOOOb, its reporting deadline looms large. While the legal status of the rule may evolve, its current enforceability remains intact. Given the Court’s recent emphasis on procedural posture, this moment of regulatory uncertainty calls for a clear strategy to ensure compliance plans are not only legally sound but operationally feasible.

For more information on Clean Air Act compliance and other environmental regulatory issues, please contact Tim Sowecke or Tyler Self. GableGotwals’ Administrative & Regulatory and Energy, Oil and Gas, and its Environmental and Natural Resources teams advise clients on regulatory compliance and enforcement.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 18, 2025 | By:  Jason T. Seay

As artificial intelligence transforms industries, the legal field faces both unprecedented challenges and opportunities. As discussed in a recent webinar hosted by ACC Houston, experts from legal, corporate, and AI governance spheres explored how legal professionals can adapt to and lead in this evolving landscape. Here are the key takeaways:

1. Essential AI Terms for Legal Professional
   
   Understanding core terminology, including machine learning, generative AI, natural language processing (NLP), and large language models, is foundational for ethical and informed AI adoption in legal work.

2. AI’s Current Legal Impact

• • AI tools are already being used for contract review, legal research, and compliance analysis.
  • Legal professionals must learn not only to use AI but to question and validate its outputs.
  • “Trust but verify” becomes essential when dealing with automated legal content.

3. Future Opportunities for Lawyers

• • AI will not replace lawyers, but lawyers who leverage AI will replace those who don’t.
  • Attorneys will increasingly serve as “AI supervisors” – ensuring accountability, ethical use, and legal soundness of AI-driven processes.
  • Specialized roles will emerge in AI governance, algorithmic auditing, and regulatory compliance.

4. Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

• • Bias in AI outputs, data privacy, and explainability are critical issues.
  • Legal professionals must stay current with evolving regulations (e.g., EU AI Act, U.S. AI policy efforts).
  • Corporate legal departments must take a leadership role in setting responsible AI policies.

Conclusion

The integration of AI in law is inevitable. Those who proactively educate themselves and embrace change will not only future-proof their careers but help shape a more just, efficient, and ethical legal system.

GableGotwals’ Technology and Cybersecurity and Data Privacy teams will continue to monitor developments and keep our clients informed.

Jason T. Seay

918-595-4832

jseay@gablelaw.com

This alert is provided as a summary for information purposes. It does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. It is not intended or written to be used and may not be used by any person to avoid penalties imposed under Oklahoma laws. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any stated information should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 9, 2025 | By:  Scott Kiplinger and Gerard D’Emilio

As occurs often in America’s courts, employers move for summary judgment on employees’ discrimination claims. The analytical road for most of these motions is familiar:

1. the employees need to show they were terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on a protected characteristic,
2. the employers need to produce a non-discriminatory reason for the terminations, and
3. the employees must proffer evidence exposing that rationale as a sham.

But for certain employees in certain courts, including the Tenth Circuit, the first hurdle was higher. That is, “majority group” employees – like white, male, or straight workers – not only needed to raise a discriminatory inference, but also demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting they worked for the unusual employers who discriminated against the majority. Thus, members of majority groups aiming to bring wrongful termination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bore a heavier burden than their minority-group counterparts.

That ended last week. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson, the United States Supreme Court held that the threshold burden for surviving summary judgment is the same for all plaintiffs, irrespective of group membership. Majority group plaintiffs, then, are no longer required to show additional “background circumstances” to bring Title VII employment discrimination claims.

The case – Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – involved a straight woman (Marlean Ames) who worked for Ohio’s Department of Youth Services for 15 years, eventually rising from assistant to program administrator. But in 2019, the Department denied her a promotion, hiring instead a gay candidate, and demoted her to a previous position with half the pay, replacing her with another gay candidate. Ames sued, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (a form of sex discrimination). At the district and appellate levels, her employer won summary judgment based on Ames’ failure to show “background circumstances” suggesting the Department discriminates against straight workers.

The Supreme Court reversed, striking heightened evidentiary standards for majority member groups, like the “background circumstances” standard at issue. The Court explained that Title VII prohibits discrimination against all employees on the basis of certain characteristics – with no distinction as to whether they are members of a minority or majority group. Imposing a heightened evidentiary standard on majority employees contravened Title VII’s focus on the individual, not the group.

Looking Toward the Future

Before Ames, the Tenth Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, was one of a number of federal appellate courts to impose this “background circumstances” standard on majority member plaintiffs. These courts reasoned use of the standard was appropriate because employers typically discriminated against minority or historically disadvantaged employees, and not majority or historically privileged employees. After Ames, this standard is no longer an impediment: any plaintiff who can offer facts raising an inference of discrimination based on a protected characteristic, like sex, can unlock the courthouse doors and force an employer to explain the legitimate, business reasons for its actions.

Employers should prepare for increased litigation in the wake of Ames. Beyond lowering the barriers to suit, the Court said, in one voice, the rationale animating the “background circumstances” standard doesn’t change Title VII’s plain text and its protection of the individual, rather than the group. If an employer has hiring (or any other) practices that either explicitly or implicitly consider whether employees or applicants belong to minority or historically marginalized groups, those practices may be challenged by majority employees. Employers should review internal policies and practices accordingly – and, as necessary, seek legal counsel for instituting best practices.

In addition to internal hiring practices, employers should anticipate claims of discrimination with respect to disciplinary and termination decisions. Now is the time for employers to ensure they have policies and practices in place to document their legitimate business reasons for any adverse employment decisions. Further, employers should train supervisors and managers to understand and appropriately implement those policies and practices to avoid claims of discrimination.

The Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Employment & Labor Law Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Law Group.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

Gerard D’Emilio
405-568-3318
gdemilio@gablelaw.com

This alert is provided as a summary for information purposes. It does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. It is not intended or written to be used and may not be used by any person to avoid penalties imposed under Oklahoma laws. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any stated information should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 9, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke and Tyler Self

On May 29, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its 8-0[1] ruling in Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County, significantly narrowing the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion holds that NEPA review must focus on the “proposed action” itself, not on indirect effects of unrelated projects. Crucially, the Court made clear that lower courts owe “substantial deference” to an agency’s judgment about what must be included in an environmental analysis. This decision delivers a strong rebuke to expansive judicial interpretations of NEPA, curbing the scope creep that has long burdened environmental reviews. By affirming agencies’ discretion in defining the scope of their analyses, the decision empowers streamlined permitting and faster project approvals. In short, the decision marks a pivotal shift toward a more focused, agency-driven NEPA process — one that prioritizes timely project delivery over speculative litigation and regulatory overreach.

Case Background

The underlying dispute arose from a rail project in Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin. In 2020, a coalition of seven rural counties (the “Seven County” group) proposed an 88-mile rail line to connect products to the national rail network. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) regulates rail construction and was tasked with conducting a NEPA review and issuing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The STB issued a draft EIS and invited public comment. After holding six public meetings and reviewing more than 1,900 comments, it prepared a 3,600-page final EIS. The EIS examined local construction impacts and mentioned that the line could eventually result in more upstream drilling and downstream refining, but it did not fully analyze those off-site effects.

Eagle County, Colorado (through which the rail line would pass) and several environmental groups challenged the STB approval, arguing the EIS violated NEPA by failing to consider these “reasonably foreseeable” indirect off-site effects. In 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated the STB’s decision and EIS, finding “numerous NEPA violations” due to these omissions. The Circuit Court treated these off-site impacts as “interrelated” impacts that the STB should have analyzed. The D.C. Circuit’s decision was appealed by the STB and the Seven County group to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The majority opinion emphasized that NEPA is a procedural statute meant to inform agency decisions, not to dictate outcomes. The Court held that the STB acted reasonably by limiting its review to the rail project itself. Under NEPA, an agency must assess the environmental effects of the project at issue, not the up- or downstream effects. The Court reasoned that STB had no decision-making or regulatory authority over such projects and concluded that a separate project “breaks the chain of proximate causation” and need not be analyzed. Practically, the STB was not required to study these other activities as they were “separate in time and place” from the rail line.

The decision also underscores strong judicial deference to agencies regarding NEPA procedures and policies. The opinion reiterated that Courts reviewing NEPA decisions should not second-guess reasonable agency judgments about scope and detail. Although the Court has recently tightened deference on pure legal questions (e.g., Loper Bright overruled Chevron deference), it reaffirmed that NEPA’s fact-based scoping is owed deferential review under the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

This ruling “reiterate[s] and clarif[ies] the fundamental principles” of NEPA judicial review, including that NEPA imposes no substantive results, and courts should not interfere if an agency’s choices fall within a “broad zone of reasonableness.” In short, so long as an EIS takes a “hard look” at the project’s impacts, courts must defer to the agency’s scoping and need not micromanage.

Notably, the Court also signaled that a remand for additional NEPA study does not always require vacating a permit. If an EIS has a deficiency, courts should remand and leave the project intact unless the agency shows it would have denied approval if informed of the issues. This can result in agencies and developers avoiding having projects halted by the courts while awaiting new studies and again lends credence to the fact that NEPA is a procedural statute.

Key Points of the Decision

• NEPA Focuses on the Proposed Project: Agencies need only to analyze the effects of the specific action they approve. Separate upstream or downstream projects do not need to be included unless they are so closely intertwined as to form a single project.
• Substantial Judicial Deference: Courts must defer to agency determinations about NEPA scope and detail. The opinion emphasizes that an agency’s choice of how far to go in considering indirect effects is within its discretion if reasonable and explained.
• No “But‑For” Indirect Effects Required: The Court explicitly rejected the notion that a project’s impact makes all future consequences “reasonably foreseeable.” Just because a rail line might facilitate other projects does not trigger NEPA unless the agency itself can regulate those projects.
• NEPA Is Procedural Only: Reaffirming past precedent, the Court reiterated that NEPA only requires a thorough review, not any particular result. Agencies must take a “hard look” at impacts, but NEPA does not impose substantive limits on permitting decisions.

Implications for Projects and Environmental Review

This ruling has immediate and far-reaching implications for infrastructure and environmental litigation. By tightly confining NEPA analysis to the authorized action, the decision removes a common basis for delaying projects (i.e., extraneous review and resulting litigation).

• Project Approvals May Move Faster: As the focus of NEPA has narrowed, so can the focus of agencies for preparing EISs. Knowing they can avoid investigating distant climate or economic ripple effects, agencies can streamline NEPA analysis at a time when they are already under pressure to expedite permitting.
• Less Litigation, More Certainty: Opponents will have fewer NEPA arguments in their tool bag for delaying projects in court now. Challenges based on alleged up- or downstream impacts are less likely to succeed, if at all, since the Court found those generally lie outside the purview of the reviewing agency.
• Regulatory and Policy Context: The ruling aligns with broader regulatory trends toward efficient permitting, a goal supported at both the federal and state levels and across political parties. It reinforces the view that NEPA is a procedural checklist rather than a substantive hurdle, giving agencies a stronger basis to defend their scoping decisions. Going forward, opponents will have to challenge the agency’s reasoning within the EIS itself, rather than argue that NEPA mandates exploring every potential secondary effect.

Conclusion

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County is a pivotal win for project sponsors and agencies and a referendum on the scope creep of indirect environmental effects analysis under NEPA. By clarifying that NEPA review is limited to an agency’s authorized action, the decision reduces uncertainty and permits agencies to concentrate on the local impacts of proposed projects. Businesses and developers should be encouraged by this ruling, which should enable large projects, including desperately needed infrastructure projects, to proceed with greater certainty.

GableGotwals’ Administrative and Regulatory Law, Energy, Oil & Gas, and Environmental and Natural Resources Law practice groups partner with clients to anticipate regulatory shifts, evaluate compliance, engage with agencies, and participate in regulatory rulemaking. Please reach out with any questions.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

June 2, 2025 | By: Tim Sowecke

On May 21, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register to “solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of its repair requirements for gas transmission, hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines[,]” and also “feedback on authorizing a risk-based approach for determining the inspection interval for in-service breakout tanks.” Stakeholders are strongly encouraged to comment and help shape future compliance programs through the rulemaking process.

Key Takeaways for Pipeline Operators:

• Repair Criteria and Integrity Management: PHMSA is soliciting feedback on ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of repair criteria and remediation timelines for gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and CO₂ pipelines. Topics include clarifying the definition of “discovery” of anomalies; accommodation of new technologies for anomaly detection, evaluation, and remediation; risk-based IM elements, codifying agency interpretations; and providing information on the burden of existing repair and remediation regulations on small operators. PHMSA is also seeking comments on applying IM criteria to non-HCA segments, the feasibility of using predicted failure pressure-based criteria, and the suitability of engineering critical assessments for anomalies such as dents or metal loss.
• Breakout Tank Inspections: The agency is exploring a shift from prescriptive annual inspections to risk-based intervals for in-service breakout tanks (49 CFR 195.432), referencing alignment with industry standards such as API Std 653.
• Broader Regulatory Streamlining: The ANPRM responds to industry input, NTSB recommendations, and recent Executive Orders (EOs 14192, 14154, and 14156), with an emphasis on modernizing regulation to reflect technological advances while maintaining safety and supporting infrastructure development.

Action Item:
Stakeholder comments are strongly encouraged. This is a good opportunity to shape future compliance programs through rulemaking. Comments should address the feasibility, safety impacts, and cost implications of proposed reforms, including technological adaptability and burdens on small entities.

Comment Deadline: Comments must be submitted by July 21, 2025.

For information on this rulemaking and other midstream regulatory matters, please contact Tim Sowecke. GableGotwals’ Administrative & Regulatory and Energy, Oil & Gas teams advise clients on rulemaking, compliance, and enforcement.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May 28, 2025 | By: Brian K. Tully and Ashlyn Smith

On May 16, the Texas Supreme Court clarified a long-standing issue in Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC, holding that unless a deed provides otherwise, surface owners – not mineral owners – control subsurface pore space created by salt mining. The ruling has profound implications for the future of carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly as Texas moves toward primacy over regulation of Class VI wells such that the state Railroad Commission (and not the federal Environmental Protection Agency) would have primary authority for implementation and enforcement of permitting standards for CCS installations — and the federal government expands incentives through the Section 45Q tax credit.

At the heart of the Myers-Woodward case lies a fundamental question of property rights: who owns the subsurface voids—specifically, salt caverns—created by salt extraction? The case concerned a 160-acre tract where the severed mineral estate was conveyed to Underground Services Markham, LLC (USM), which conducted solution-mining to extract salt, creating underground caverns suitable for storing hydrocarbons or CO₂. USM claimed ownership and usage rights to the caverns, arguing that as the mineral owner and creator of the caverns, it could store offsite hydrocarbons or lease storage rights to third parties. Myers-Woodward, LLC, the surface owner, countered that USM’s rights were limited to salt production and did not include using the resulting voids for unrelated storage. The court agreed, ruling that absent an agreement to the contrary, these caverns formed through the removal of salt by the mineral estate holder belong to the surface estate. The decision distinguished seemingly analogous cases that favored mineral rights holders in disputes over the ownership of coal mines and established a new “bright-line” rule for salt caverns akin to existing precedent for migratory minerals like oil and gas: surface owners retain control over the empty spaces left behind after mineral extraction.

This ruling has profound implications for the future of CCS in Texas. Salt caverns are among the most promising geological formations for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide. However, to qualify for the lucrative 45Q tax credit—currently offering up to $85 per metric ton of CO₂ permanently stored—developers must have legal rights to the storage site. The court’s decision means that mineral rights holders cannot unilaterally repurpose caverns for CO₂ storage without acquiring the rights from the surface owner. In practical terms, this elevates the negotiating power of landowners like Myers-Woodward, who can now lease these caverns to CCS developers and potentially share in the revenue generated by 45Q credits.

The timing of this legal clarification is particularly significant as Texas nears approval for Class VI primacy. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Class VI wells are regulated to ensure the safe and permanent storage of CO₂ in deep geologic formations. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently oversees these permits, Texas has taken steps to assume regulatory authority. In April 2025, the EPA and the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement, signaling that Texas is on the cusp of gaining full primacy. Once granted, the RRC will have the power to issue and enforce Class VI permits, streamlining the process for CCS projects and potentially accelerating deployment across the state.

The convergence of these developments underscores the complexity of aligning legal, economic, and environmental objectives. For CCS to succeed at scale, developers must navigate not only engineering challenges, but also the intricate web of property law and regulatory frameworks. GableGotwals attorneys have deep experience in energy law, environmental compliance, and property rights. Our team can help you navigate the complexities of subsurface ownership, secure 45Q tax incentives, and comply with Class VI well regulations.

If you have any questions, please contact any member of GableGotwals’ Energy, Oil & Gas team.