May 29, 2026

Data Centers, Grid Reliability, and Large Load Regulation: Recent Developments in Pennsylvania and the Region

Pittsburgh, PA

Data Center Development Alert

(by Justine Kasznica and Susanna Bagdasarova)

Pennsylvania’s data center market continues to evolve rapidly as policymakers, regulators, and grid operators respond to growing electricity demand and reliability concerns associated with large-load customers and AI-driven infrastructure development. Recent actions by Governor Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), and PJM Interconnection (PJM) underscore the increasingly complex regulatory and commercial landscape facing data center developers, operators, utilities, and investors in the region.

On May 27, 2026, Governor Shapiro released the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) standards, a new set of guidelines for data center development in Pennsylvania, as previewed in his 2026-2027 budget proposal. To qualify for Commonwealth support, including tax benefits and eligibility for streamlined permitting, developers will need to demonstrate engagement in four core areas: (1) energy affordability, (2) transparency and community engagement, (3) workforce and economic development, and (4) environmental protection. The GRID Standards require each developer seeking such incentives to submit plans to outlining its commitment to:

  • Provide for its energy needs without imposing additional costs on other utility ratepayers;
  • Create a community outreach plan that includes holding public meetings and consulting with local governments to promote public engagement and transparency;
  • Commit to a minimum of $250 million in cumulative new investment, facilitate local job creation and develop community benefit agreements with the local jurisdiction; and
  • Submit a sustainability plan detailing how it will protect water and energy resources and commit to environmental protection standards.

On May 13, 2026, the PUC issued a Final Order establishing what it described as a “first-of-its-kind” model tariff framework for large-load customers, including data centers, which is intended to guide electric distribution companies as they evaluate and serve such customers. …

May 27, 2026

Governor Shapiro Proposes 2026–27 Budget That Includes Standards for Data Center Development

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On February 3, 2026, Governor Shapiro announced a 2026–27 budget proposal that includes the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) standards for data center development in Pennsylvania. Press Release, Commw. of Pa., “Governor Shapiro Unveils 2026–27 Budget Proposal to Keep Doing What’s Working in Pennsylvania: Cutting Costs, Growing the Economy, Strengthening Public Safety, Funding Education, and Getting Stuff Done for Pennsylvanians” (Feb. 3, 2026). According to the press release, the GRID standards are intended to balance Pennsylvania’s unique position to be a leader in the data center development and AI-related infrastructure space, with the concerns many stakeholders share about potential impacts on communities, utility bills, and the environment. Id. The Shapiro administration says that for these reasons, the GRID standards are built on the following four core principles applicable to developers seeking permitting advantages and state incentives:

  • Protecting Energy and Water Resources: Developers must either provide their own power generation or fully fund any new generation required for their projects. This is designed to mitigate cost increases to existing ratepayers, including residential and commercial customers. In addition, developers must comply with environmental requirements, specifically water conservation and sustainable resource use.
  • Transparency and Community Engagement: Developers must meet heightened disclosure obligations and engage directly and transparently with stakeholder communities. This principle responds to Pennsylvanians’ concerns over limited visibility into prior projects and aims to ensure early and ongoing public involvement.
  • Delivering Local Jobs and Community Benefits: Developers must prioritize hiring and training local labor and enter into community benefit agreements.

    • …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Presents Updates to EQB on Multiple Pending Oil and Gas Rulemaking Petitions

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

At the March 10, 2026, Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) offered updates on several pending oil and gas rulemaking petitions. The petitions cover a range of issues, including unconventional well setbacks, financial assurance, on-site fluid processing, well plugging procedures, and electronic plan management.

Unconventional Oil and Gas Well Setback Petition
As reported in Vol. 43, No. 1 (2026) of this Newsletter, the EQB accepted this Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project rulemaking petition to increase setbacks from unconventional oil and gas operations for further study in December 2025. At the EQB meeting, PADEP reported that the rulemaking petition is currently being analyzed, that several agency programs and toxicologists are evaluating the studies included with the petition, and the Bureau of Regulatory Counsel is conducting a legal review. PADEP said it intends to deliver a recommendation on the proposed rulemaking to the EQB by the end of 2026.

Shale Well Bonding Petitions
The EQB accepted rulemaking these petitions in November 2021 to increase bonding for conventional and shale wells. Act 96, which became law in 2022, bars EQB changes to conventional well bonding for 10 years, but the shale bonding rulemaking petition remains pending. PADEP indicated funding is allocated this fiscal year for an actuarial study to determine adequate financial assurance for plugging unconventional wells, but PADEP’s timeline for completing review of the rulemaking petition is uncertain. …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Announces Rescission of Oil and Gas Civil Penalty Technical Guidance Document and Replaces It with Two Civil Penalty Standard Operating Procedures

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Jordan Brown)

On March 28, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin rescinding its technical guidance document (TGD) on civil penalty assessments in the agency’s Office of Oil and Gas Management. 56 Pa. Bull. 1778 (Mar. 28, 2026). In the notice, PADEP also stated that it would replace its prior civil penalty assessment guide with two new standard operating procedure (SOP) documents relating to civil penalties for oil and gas violations, one for unconventional operations and one for conventional operations. See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026); Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Civil Penalty Assessments for Conventional Oil and Gas Operations” (Feb. 2026).

PADEP also issued a new SOP for identifying, tracking, and resolving oil and gas violations, which supersedes the now-rescinded TGD “Standards and Guidelines for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Doc ID. No. 820-4000-001, issued Jan. 17, 2015). See Office of Oil & Gas Mgmt., PADEP, “Standard Operating Procedure for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations” (Feb. 2026). Unlike TGDs, which undergo formal public comment periods, SOPs are internal agency documents that PADEP can revise at its discretion without public input.

Unconventional Civil Penalty SOP
This SOP guides PADEP staff in calculating civil penalties for violations related to unconventional oil and gas operations and includes statutory maximum penalties under the various environmental laws covered by the SOP: the Oil and Gas Act ($75,000 plus $5,000 per day that the violation continues), the Clean Streams Law ($10,000 per day), the Solid Waste Management Act ($25,000 per day), and the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act ($10,000, plus $500 for each day the violation continues). …

May 27, 2026

PADEP Introduces New Bureau of Permitting Coordination

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

On January 27, 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced its Major Projects Permitting Division (MPPD) (formerly the Regional Permit Coordination Office), following the agency’s reorganization of permitting functions within the new Bureau of Permitting Coordination. See News Release, PADEP, “Getting Permitting Done: DEP Achieved Historic Success in Permitting in 2025, Eliminates Longstanding Backlog” (Jan. 27, 2026); see also Commw. of Pa., “Major Projects Permitting Division,” here. The Bureau of Permitting Coordination is now comprised of the MPPD and the Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development (SPEED) program.

The MPPD is staffed like the state’s regional programs responsible for Chapter 102 (Erosion and Sediment Control) and Chapter 105 (General Permits) permitting, and consists of a team of engineering and environmental reviewers. Covered projects include Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines, large-scale linear infrastructure, transportation projects, and projects with complex engineering or geologic considerations. The Division supports and coordinates statewide permitting for major economic development projects, ensuring efficiency and consistency in Chapter 102 and Chapter 105 approvals.

MPPD’s core functions include:

  • Project review and decision making on Chapter 102 and 105 permits;
  • Statewide engineering support on trenchless technology, geologic hazards, contaminated sites, complex bedrock, landslides, coal ash, and acid-producing rock; cross-program alignment with regional offices, oil and gas, dam safety and flood protection, mining programs, and county conservation districts;
  • Technical collaboration with the Bureau of Waterways, Engineering, and Wetlands and the Bureau of Clean Water;

    • …

May 27, 2026

Interest Groups Submit GHG Cap and Tax Petition to the EQB

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

 On February 5, 2026, environmental and public interest groups submitted a 495-page demand urging the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to act on a rulemaking petition originally filed in November 2018 by 192 petitioners. The petition requested the adoption of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 14 Pennsylvania industries producing at least 25,000 tons of emissions annually, including cement, iron, lead, petroleum products, coal mining, electricity generation, oil and gas production, natural gas and carbon dioxide suppliers, and fuel distributors. The proposed regulation, entitled the Stability and Affordability Via Emissions Reduction (SAVER) Regulation, aims to achieve net-zero emissions in Pennsylvania by 2052.

The EQB accepted the petition for study in April 2019 but took no further action. Instead, in October 2019, Governor Tom Wolf issued an executive order directing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to draft regulations targeting carbon pollution from power plants, consistent with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The resulting regulation was proposed for public comment in November 2020 and finalized in April 2022 after a two-and-a-half-year process. The RGGI regulation, and subsequent legal challenges to it, have been covered extensively in previous editions of this Newsletter, including Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) and Vol. 40, No. 4 (2023).

After taking office, Governor Josh Shapiro established a RGGI Working Group in April 2023 to evaluate the merits of the state’s membership in RGGI. In September 2023, the group issued a memorandum supporting a cap-and-invest program for energy generation. …

May 27, 2026

OSMRE Issues Final Rule Amending Pennsylvania’s SMCRA Program

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Buchman, and Jordan Brown)

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has issued a final rule approving an amendment to Pennsylvania’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) program, effective February 17, 2026. See 91 Fed. Reg. 1696 (Jan. 15, 2026). This action confirms that Pennsylvania’s updated program remains consistent with federal SMCRA standards and gives the commonwealth continued primacy to administer and enforce surface coal mining and reclamation within its borders.

Act 32 of 2017 requires permit applicants to ensure the restoration of pre-mining flows and biological communities in waters affected by subsidence. 52 Pa. Stat. § 1406.5(j). This aligns with Pennsylvania’s administrative code, specifically 25 Pa. Code § 86.37(a)(3), which mandates that applicants demonstrate no presumptive evidence of potential pollution.

The amendment maintains Pennsylvania’s regulatory program as more stringent than federal standards, particularly 30 C.F.R. §§ 784.14, 784.21, and 817.41, and section 516 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1266. Pennsylvania’s approach imposes a duty on applicants to demonstrate the absence of presumptive pollution evidence, while federal standards focus on minimizing disturbances. Section 5(j) of Act 32 specifies that the exemption from presumptive pollution evidence applies only if the permit application includes plans for restoring pre-mining conditions. This ensures consistency with the pre-mining uses of Pennsylvania’s waters.

The amendment also introduces a more structured approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement, ensuring that permit applicants provide more comprehensive documentation and evidence to support their restoration plans. For communities and landowners, the amendment is expected to enhance environmental protection by reinforcing reclamation obligations, clarifying water quality and land restoration expectations, and ensuring that financial assurances are sufficient for long-term site stability. …

May 20, 2026

EPA Proposal Aims to Clarify Scope of Construction Activities Allowed Prior to Issuance of NSR Permit

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, PA

Environmental Alert

(by Gina Buchman, Gary Steinbauer, and Christina Puhnaty)

To clarify the Clean Air Act’s preconstruction permitting requirements, EPA issued a proposed rule to revise the definition of “begin actual construction” in its New Source Review (NSR) regulations to allow the construction of components that do not emit air pollutants prior to obtaining an NSR permit, such as support structures for utility services, certain concrete pads and foundations, office buildings, and certain storage buildings. See 91 Fed. Reg. 26958 (May 13, 2026). The proposal would also add a new definition of “pollutant-emitting activities.” EPA’s NSR regulations apply to the construction of new stationary sources and major modifications of existing major stationary sources. If finalized, these revisions will automatically apply to projects seeking an NSR permit from EPA and state, local, or tribal permitting authorities that directly implement EPA’s PSD regulations. States implementing their own SIP-approved NSR programs may need to amend their regulations to incorporate the revised definitions proposed by EPA.

As currently written, EPA’s definition of “begin actual construction” at 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.165, 51.166, § 52.21, and Appendix S to Part 51 prohibits “on-site construction activities on an emissions unit which are permanent in nature” prior to obtaining an NSR permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(a)(7)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(a)(2)(iii). These construction activities include the installation of building supports and foundations, laying underground pipework, and the construction of permanent storage structures. In past guidance, EPA has also construed the term “emissions unit” in these regulations to include any installations necessary to accommodate that unit.

EPA now proposes to revise the definition of “begin actual construction” and add a new definition for “pollutant-emitting activities” in 40 C.F.R. …

May 15, 2026

What’s Next for Data Centers in Pennsylvania? An On-the-Ground Look at Navigating the Opportunities, Challenges

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Pittsburgh Business Times

(featuring Justine Kasznica, Gina Buchman, Anna Jewart, and Dave White)

Data center development is accelerating across Pennsylvania, creating both opportunities and complex challenges for businesses and communities.

“We’re involved with almost 20 active data center projects at various stages of development, and there’s at least another handful that are on the drawing board that we hope are going to become active,” Babst Calland Managing Shareholder Donald C. Bluedorn II said at the opening of the law firm’s recent event at the Duquesne Club. “There is a tremendous amount of energy and activity in this space.”

At “What’s Next for Data Centers in Pennsylvania,” four Babst Calland attorneys discussed what it takes to get these and other projects across the finish line. Moderated by Pittsburgh Business Times Market President and Publisher Evan Rosenberg, the panel included Justine Kasznica, who leads the firm’s data center development and emerging technologies practices, Anna Skipper Jewart, whose practice focuses on real estate, land use and zoning and public sector law, Gina Falaschi Buchman, an environmental shareholder in the firm’s in the Washington, D.C., office, and David White, who leads the firm’s construction practice.

The following is a condensed version of their conversation, highlighting how Pennsylvania’s energy resources, industrial legacy, and strategic location are positioning the Commonwealth as a growing player in the national data center economy.

Pennsylvania’s Competitive Advantage

Rosenberg: With AI-driven demand accelerating the surge in data centers across the country at an unprecedented pace, what is your perspective on the projects currently under development in Pennsylvania?

Kasznica: What we’re seeing in Pennsylvania is interesting. …

May 19, 2026

EPA Proposes to Scale Back PFAS Drinking Water Regulations

Washington, DC

Environmental Alert 

(by Sloane Wildman and Jordan Brown)

On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced two proposed rules that would significantly reshape the federal regulatory framework for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. The first proposed rule, the PFOA and PFAS Compliance Extension Rule, would uphold enforceable drinking water limits for the two most common PFAS compounds (perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)), but would allow water systems to request an extension of the compliance deadline an additional two years, to 2031, to comply with the enforceable limits. The second proposed rule, the PFAS Rescission Rule, would rescind federal drinking water regulations for the other PFAS compounds currently subject to drinking water standards (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, or GenX), and mixtures of these three PFAS, plus perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)), citing the need to correct prior procedural deficiencies under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The proposed rules build on the regulatory framework first established in April 2024, by the prior administration, which set enforceable limits for six PFAS compounds. As we have reported previously, in April 2025, EPA announced its strategy to address PFAS contamination. Shortly thereafter, in May 2025, EPA announced its plan to scale back and extend compliance deadlines for federal PFAS drinking water regulations, stating that it intended to retain standards for PFOA and PFOS, and to reconsider regulations for the other four compounds: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.  

For affected parties, these developments mean that compliance with PFOA and PFOS standards remains mandatory, but water systems may have until 2031 to meet the enforceable limits if they request an extension. …

May 13, 2026

U.S. DOT Publishes Final Rule on Drug and Alcohol Testing Procedures

Washington, DC

Firm Alert

(by Melanie Lampton)

On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule amending its drug and alcohol procedures under 49 CFR Part 40.  DOT addresses implementation issues associated with oral fluid drug testing and updates terminology to align with Executive Order (E.O.) 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.  The rule becomes effective June 10, 2026.

Background:

On May 2, 2023, DOT amended Part 40 to add oral fluid testing as an additional drug testing method and, in certain situations, to require a directly observed collection to be an oral fluid test as opposed to a urine test.  However, because there are currently no U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratories available to perform oral fluid testing, employers cannot yet utilize this testing method under Part 40.

To correct this practical impossibility, DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 9, 2024, proposing to amend Part 40 for an interim period to permit directly observed urine collections in certain situations where oral fluid collection is not yet available.  Additionally, on October 1, 2025, DOT published a supplemental NPRM proposing to replace the word “gender” with “sex” in Part 40 to be consistent with E.O. 14168.

Key Highlights of the Final Rule:

  • Directly Observed Urine Collections:  DOT amends Part 40 to allow employers to use directly observed urine collections in situations where oral fluid testing would otherwise be required, so long as oral fluid testing is not available.  

    • …

May 13, 2026

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Issues New Civil Penalty SOPs for Oil and Gas Operations

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Sean McGovern and Jordan Brown)

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has issued two new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for civil penalty assessments related to unconventional and conventional oil and gas wells and a new SOP for identifying, tracking, and resolving oil and gas violations:

These SOPs supersede the Civil Penalty Assessments in the Oil and Gas Management Program (Doc. ID No. 550-4180-001, issued January 12, 2002) and the Standards and Guidelines for Identifying, Tracking, and Resolving Oil and Gas Violations (Doc ID. No. 820-4000-001, issued January 17, 2015) Technical Guidance Documents (TGDs), respectively.

The Department’s transition from TGDs to SOPs represents a significant procedural shift. TGDs undergo public comment periods and structured review processes with opportunity for the regulated community to participate, whereas SOPs are internal agency documents that the Department can revise at its discretion without public input. This transition provides the Department with greater administrative flexibility but reduces opportunities for stakeholder engagement.

Conventional and Unconventional Civil Penalty SOPs

Changes common to both civil penalty SOPs (Conventional and Unconventional) include, but are not limited to the following:

    1. Statutorily Based Penalty Ranges
      The SOPs now clarify the full civil penalty ranges authorized under the 2012 Oil and Gas Act.

    2. …

May 7, 2026

Babst Calland Among Top-Ranked Firms in Associate Satisfaction Survey

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV, Harrisburg, PA, Lakewood, NY, State College, PA, and Washington, DC

BTI Consulting Group’s BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026: BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are Happiest report recognizes law firms that outperform peers based on direct associate feedback across factors tied to retention, engagement and long‑term career satisfaction. This first and only report of its kind, Associate Satisfaction A‑Listers is based on a large-scale independent survey with more than 5,000 responses of associates at Am Law 200, global, mid-size, and smaller law firms. The report shows exactly what drives associate satisfaction – and which firms deliver on it best.

According to the report, the surveyed associates identified Babst Calland as an Associate Satisfaction Leader across the activities and factors that drive associate job satisfaction. Women associates ranked the Firm as Distinguished in those same areas, an important distinction, as BTI found that women associates report job satisfaction levels that are 17% lower than those of their male counterparts across the legal industry.

Recognized among only 189 law firms in the country, Babst Calland ranked in the two top levels, Associate Satisfaction Leader and Distinguished Law Firm, where associates reported the highest levels of career development support, mentoring, training, growth opportunities, and overall job satisfaction. Babst Calland also ranked among the top 138 firms with the most satisfaction among women associates.

Among the seven factors most valued by associates, these are the BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026 survey categories in which Babst Calland was ranked:

Associate Satisfaction Leader

  • top 5% of firms Best at Helping Women Associates in Their Careers
  • top 6% of firms With Partners Invested in Individual Women Associates’ Success
  • top 10%  of firms Best at Helping Associates in their Careers
  • top 12% of firms With Partners Invested in Individual Associates’ Success

Distinguished Law Firm

  • top 14% of firms With Highest Number of Extremely Satisfied Women Associates
  • top 15% of firms Best at Mentoring Women Associates
  • top 15% of firms Best Opportunity for Women Associates to Grow Within Their Firm
  • top 16% of firms Best at Access to Training for Women Associates
  • top 20% of firms With Highest Number of Extremely Satisfied Associates
  • top 22% of firms Best at Mentoring Associates
  • top 22% of firms Best Opportunity to Grow Within Their Firm
  • top 23% of firms Offering the Best Access to Training

“We’re extremely proud of our associates at Babst Calland and value their contributions,” …

May 7, 2026

Coal Mine Federal Oversight Rules Challenged in Litigation (Again)

Charleston, WV

Environmental Alert

(Christopher (Kip) Power, Robert Stonestreet and Joseph (Jed) Meadows)

Several organizations have filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate regulations intended to restore state agencies as the primary regulators of most coal mining operations. On April 20, 2026, Citizens Coal Council, Appalachian Voices, and the Sierra Club (Plaintiffs) filed a civil action against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, challenging the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)’s February 19, 2026, revisions to its regulations governing oversight of state mine regulatory programs under the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Citizens Coal Council, et al. v. Burgum, 1:26-cv-01348-RBW (D.C. D. Ct.). Asserting that the changes made by the 2026 revisions to those regulations (the “SMCRA Oversight Rules”; generally, 30 C.F.R. Parts 730 – 746) are “arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise inconsistent with law,” the Complaint largely seeks a return to the 2024 version that was put into effect under the Biden administration.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the 2026 changes “unlawfully modified important provisions of the [prior SMRCA Oversight Rules].” Complaint, at ¶ 3. Notably, the Plaintiffs previously challenged the 2020 version of the Oversight Rules (promulgated during President Trump’s first term) for many of the same reasons, but ended that challenge when the Biden administration promulgated the 2024 version of the same rules.

OSM’s 2026 revisions to its SMCRA Oversight Rules were indeed intended to return them largely to their 2020 form (the “2020 Rule”), “maintain[ing] SMCRA’s deference to primary states and limiting the scope of [Ten Day Notice] issuance by OSM.”  (See Environmental Alert: “OSM Finalizes Oversight Rules to Closely Resemble 2020 Version”). …

May 7, 2026

Removing the Home Court Advantage: How the Supreme Court’s Decision in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Expands the Scope of Federal Officer Removal

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Joseph Schaeffer)

Earlier this term, a unanimous Supreme Court held that Chevron could invoke federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) to remove environmental litigation that certain Louisiana parishes had filed in Louisiana state court. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, No. 24-813, at 2 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2026).  The decision is significant primarily because it expands the circumstances under which persons acting under federal officers can remove cases to federal court. But it is also notable for how it lays bare a clear distinction in how certain members of the Court approach the task of statutory interpretation.

Start with the merits. In 2013, Plaquemines Parish and other parishes filed 42 state-court suits against oil and gas companies for allegedly violating Louisiana’s State and Coastal Resources Management Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49:214.21 et seq. Id. at 5. Enacted in 1978, the Act requires persons using Louisiana’s coastal zone to obtain a permit unless the use was lawfully commenced or established prior to the permitting program taking effect in 1980. Id. The parishes alleged that the oil and gas companies had failed to obtain required permits, including because certain pre-1980 uses had been illegally commenced and not eligible for the permitting exemption. Id. Among other things, the parishes argued that the oil and gas companies’ operations during the 1940s were conducted in “bad faith” and failed to protect the “marshland from contamination and excessive land losses” by using earthen pits instead of steel tanks; using vertical-drilling methods instead of allegedly less harmful alternatives; and primarily using canals instead of roads for transportation. Id. …

Top