U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Expedites Clean Water Act Section 404 Dredge-and-Fill Permit For Line 5 Oil Pipeline

Author: Corey Prigent

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Paul District in Minnesota recently issued a controversial Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Dredge-and-Fill individual permit on October 29, 2025, to Enbridge Inc. for the construction-related impacts to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) resulting from the Line 5 Reroute project (Line 5) in northern Wisconsin. This is the first such permit issued after President Trump’s Inauguration Day “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” and “Unleashing American Energy” executive orders (EO).

What powers do these EO grant?

Described in the “Unleashing American Energy” EO 14154 (Unleashing American Energy EO), the heads of relevant agencies are encouraged to undertake all available efforts to streamline permitting processes for projects deemed essential by the agency head to the United States’ economy or national security, to expedite the adjudication of Federal permits, including through emergency authorization. It also facilitates the permitting and construction of interstate energy transportation and other critical energy infrastructure, to “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources” and “restore American prosperity.” Similarly, the “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” EO 14156 (National Energy Emergency EO) states that emergency approvals can be granted to approved agencies to facilitate the President’s energy agenda.

What is a CWA Section 404 Permit?

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOTUS, including wetlands. This includes activities from projects which include fill for development, water resource projects, infrastructure development, and mining projects. In accordance with Section 404, a permit is required before any dredged or fill material may be discharged into WOTUS. Individual permits are reviewed by the USACE or other state or tribal Section 404(g) program meeting the guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). As part of the authority granted by the EO, the USACE may fast-track the permitting process for projects which are found to meet the requirements for “emergency” status.

Why is the Line 5 Section 404 permit significant?

According to the USACE, the permit request for the Line 5 project “meets the terms of EO 14156 and is therefore subject to special emergency permitting procedures to address an energy supply situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship if corrective action requiring a permit is not undertaken within a time period less than the normal time needed to process the application under standard procedures.” However, environmental groups have vowed to challenge the approval, with ongoing legal complaints challenging the legality of the National Energy Emergency EO. One key component of these environmental reviews is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts of their major actions, and the streamlined process limits those environmental reviews and public involvement.

Section 401 of the CWA regulates water quality certifications, giving states and tribes the authority to confirm that a proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards before a federal permit can be issued. On November 5, 2025, U.S. EPA advanced a CWA action to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review to revise the Section 401 rule. While the proposed revised rule was expected by U.S. EPA later in 2025, as the end of the year quickly approaches this may get shifted to early 2026 with a final rule expected by mid-2026.

The local state authority for the Line 5 relocation project is the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which is subject to an ongoing legal challenge for water quality certification. The Wisconsin DNR issued a water quality certification for the project; however, the decision is under a legal challenge, so until a final decision has been made by the courts, the water quality certification cannot be considered final. Due to the legal challenge and the final water quality certification pending, environmental groups are denouncing the USACE decision to prematurely issue the Section 404 permit for the Line 5 project as violating the CWA.

What this means looking forward:

ALL4 will continue to monitor the USACE fast-tracking of emergency permits in Wisconsin and the Midwest region and we’ll track any changes to states’ Section 401 authority as U.S. EPA is expected to propose a revised rule. Facilities in the Midwest, those looking to pursue a CWA Section 404 permit or who may be affected by CWA Section 401 water quality certifications, or those who may be affected by such permitting actions should continue to monitor the outcomes of the proposed rulemaking and ongoing legal challenges.

For inquiries about ALL4’s services or follow-up questions regarding the proposed Part 253 regulations, please contact ALL4 Technical Manager Cody Fridley at cfridley@all4inc.com and/or Consulting Engineer Corey Prigent at cprigent@all4inc.com.

New York Finalizes the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule – 6 NYCRR Part 253

Author: Louise Shaffer

On December 1, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) finalized 6 NYCRR Part 253: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (Reporting Program or Part 253). From April to July of 2025 NYSDEC received over 3,000 comments and addressed all comments in the Assessment of Public Comment document for the proposed Reporting Program. The Reporting Program will require companies that emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e) to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually to NYSDEC. The first reporting period for this rule is January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026, with the first submittal period scheduled for June 1, 2027.

How will the proposed reconsideration of the Federal Part 98 GHGRP affect Part 253?

On September 16, 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published a proposed rule to Reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) required in 40 CFR Part 98 under Docket No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0186. Part 253 is heavily based on the Federal GHGRP under 40 CFR Part 98 but with some key differences. Refer to our previous blog on the differences between 40 CFR Part 98 and 6 NYCRR Part 253. In the Frequently Asked Questions document for the Reporting Program NYSDEC has outlined that the reconsideration of the Federal GHGRP will not affect the implementation of Part 253. NYSDEC sees the 40 CFR Part 98 references as static references that informed the development of the Part 253 provisions and does not plan to rely on future versions of 40 CFR Part 98. It is unclear if NYSDEC will document the historic version of 40 CFR Part 98 on the NYSDEC website.

What has changed from the proposed rule?

The overall rule has not changed significantly, but there are some key changes to note:

• Updated the definition of “Biomass-Derived Fuels” to include forest products manufacturing bioenergy feedstocks.
• Updated the definition for “Renewable Natural Gas” to include Biomethane and synthetic methane produced from biomass-derived CO₂ and renewable hydrogen.
• Updated the definition for “Transmission Pipeline” to include the Hinshaw exemption as referenced in section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.) (2023).
• Postponed the deadline for third party verification for the first two years of reporting from August 10^th to December 1^st for Reporting years 2026 and 2027.
• Specified calibration postponements requests must be submitted before July 1, 2026 for the first reporting period.
• Requires that facilities which combust wood residuals must also report the state from which the wood was removed. Part 253 now states “The disclosure of the state where the wood was removed may be based on an annual percentage of New York and non-New York wood removals as identified by the same primary timber processer providing the wood residuals.”
• Facilities can exclude reporting of electricity purchased from the utility market.
• Facilities must submit a case-by-case demonstration under 253-2.7 to NYSDEC for fuels brought on-site that are not used for combustion. This submittal must include a mass balance or a metered flow measurement device to prove the fuels are converted into durable products and not combusted at the facility.
• Updated to default GHG emissions factors provided in Table 2-3 of the rule.
• Emissions Monitoring and Measurement Plan (EMMP) initial submittal is delayed until September 1, 2026 instead of March 1, 2026. These submittals are due every three years, so the second submittal will be March 1, 2029.

What is the reporting deadline?

The first reporting period is January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 but there are still some important reporting deadlines in 2026 to look out for. The key reporting deadlines are:

• July 1, 2026: Request for extension on calibration requirements due to potential issues with the calibration timeline.
• September 1, 2026: EMMP for applicable reporters under Sections 2.2 and 2.13 of the rule.
• December 31, 2026: Large emissions source’s GHG monitoring plan due to NYSDEC. This report is only submitted in future years if there are changes at the facility.
• June 1, 2027: First GHG emissions data report due for reporting year 2026. Annual GHG emissions reports are due each subsequent year on June 1^st.
• December 1, 2027 and 2028: Third party verification statements due for reporting year 2026 and 2027, respectively. For subsequent years, verification statements are due August 10. The deadline is changed for the third year of reporting, e.g., in 2029.

What should my facility do to prepare?

Facilities should initially assess their applicability to the rule and the associated calculation requirements. This evaluation is more important for smaller facilities that are not subject to the Federal GHGRP because they need to assess their current GHG emissions under the Part 253 Reporting Program. Facilities should begin gathering the required data for reporting 2026 GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, fuel usage records, carbon content information for specific fuels, throughput figures, and calibration documentation. Additionally, facilities are advised to develop comprehensive GHG monitoring plans to ensure compliance with the NY Reporting Rule.

ALL4 can help with identifying 6 NYCRR Part 253 applicability, developing GHG monitoring reports, and calculating GHG emissions. For inquiries about ALL4’s services or follow-up questions regarding Part 253 regulations, please contact Louise Shaffer at lshaffer@all4inc.com or your ALL4 project manager.

Proposed Revisions to the TSCA PFAS Reporting Requirements

Author: Molly Palmer

On November 10, 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released proposed changes to the scope of Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that require manufacturers and importers of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that enter commerce to report information on the use and production of said compounds. The proposed revisions would result in significant reductions in reporting obligations for those businesses subject to the rule through the introduction of several notable exemptions. They align with U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s April 28, 2025 announcement that he intended to collect necessary information without overburdening small businesses and article importers. In addition to the introduction of these exemptions, the revisions would also extend the reporting timeline to start 60 days after the effective date of the final rule and to conclude three months prior to the closing of the reporting portal.

History of the Rule

Section 8(a)(7) is a one-time reporting rule that requires businesses to report on the manufacture and import activities of specific PFAS, detailing their PFAS activities since January 1, 2011. Details to be reported include chemical identity, production volumes, usage categories, manufacturing byproducts, disposal methods, worker exposure, and potential environmental and/or health hazards. Most importantly, this is a one-time reporting requirement separate from the typical four-year TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycle.

The rule was first finalized on October 11, 2023, and does not currently include any exemptions to the reporting requirements or any de minimis threshold below which reporting is not required. The original rule contained an information collection period for one year following the rule’s effective date, followed by a six-month reporting period (with a six-month extension for small manufacturers whose reporting obligations are exclusively from article import). Since the original promulgation of this rule, there has been a series of efforts to delay the reporting period. The most recent was an interim final rule published on May 13, 2025, that adjusted the reporting window for most manufacturers to April 13, 2026, through October 13, 2026. The recently proposed changes would further delay the reporting period.

Proposed Changes

The most recently proposed changes to the Section 8(a)(7) rule include several exemptions to the rule that would greatly reduce the reporting burden for those industries potentially affected by the rule. Proposed reporting exemptions include:

De Minimis Threshold

The proposed rule includes an exemption for any PFAS present at a concentration below 0.1% in any manufactured or imported substance, regardless of the overall production or use of the substance. Although this exemption is available to both manufacturers and importers of substances or mixtures containing PFAS, importers will likely be exempt from reporting per the proposed exemption for imported articles. This is a helpful exemption because there is a low likelihood that companies would have known about the existence of such low levels of PFAS.

Imported Articles

As the rule currently stands, all imported items containing PFAS are required to be reported no matter how they make their way into commerce. The proposed changes include an exemption for any PFAS imported as part of an article. An article is defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 704.3 as a manufactured item:

(1) which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture,

(2) which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and

(3) which has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical substances, mixtures, or articles; except that fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or design.”

Certain Byproducts, Impurities, and Non-isolated Intermediates

Manufactured PFAS that result as a byproduct, impurity, or  non-isolated intermediates would be exempt under the proposed changes to the Section 8(a)(7) rule as long as the product is not manufactured for a commercial purpose. U.S. EPA has proposed this exemption in an effort to closer align the reporting requirements of the TSCA PFAS reporting program with existing TSCA CDR reporting requirements that include similar exemptions. U.S. EPA is proposing to narrow reporting to only those PFAS that are manufactured for a commercial advantage.

Byproducts are defined as a substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the production of another substance; impurities are defined as a substance that is unintentionally present with another substance; and non-isolated intermediates include substances used in a chemical reaction to intentionally manufacture another substance that is “not intentionally removed from the equipment in which it is manufactured.”, per the definitions found in 40 CFR 704.3.

Research and Development Chemicals

The proposed revisions also include an exemption for PFAS manufactured and imported in small quantities for Research and Development (R&D) purposes. However, the threshold for small quantities is not currently defined but it can reasonably be assumed that the same definition for TSCA’s new chemicals program can be applicable here as well, which is an amount “no greater than reasonably necessary” for R&D reasons.

Key Takeaways

The proposed exemptions to Section 8(a)(7) of the TSCA would greatly minimize the regulatory burden for many businesses that would be subject to the extensive PFAS reporting requirements originally established in 2021. Although the proposed revisions include exemptions from reporting obligations, it’s a good idea to prepare for your reporting obligations as if the potential exemptions will not be finalized.

Regardless of the potential exemption status of substances that contain reportable concentrations of PFAS that are either manufactured or imported, the proposed revisions will provide additional time for companies to perform further investigation and obtain all the necessary data to fulfill reporting requirements and potential exemption claims. ALL4 has extensive experience helping companies comply with chemical reporting requirements. If you would like more information or have any questions about the potential exemptions from the TSCA PFAS reporting rule, reach out to Molly Palmer (mpalmer@all4inc.com) or Thomas Timms (ttimms@all4inc.com).

Proposed Update to Definition of Waters of the United States

Author: William Shane

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published a proposed rule to update the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). WOTUS is a key definition because it establishes whether or not a waterbody or wetland is under Federal jurisdiction and thus protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA gives U.S. EPA and USACE authority to define WOTUS in regulation rather than giving a prescribed definition in statute; therefore, the definition of WOTUS has changed significantly over time.

Why is the Rule Being Updated?

As directed by U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the definition is being revised to align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In this decision, the Court ruled that the CWA covers only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “Waters of the United States” in their own right, meaning they are “indistinguishable” from those waters. The ruling limited U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate wetlands that do not meet this criteria.

What are the Key Changes Being Proposed?

Several changes to key definitions are proposed in the update:

• Add the definition of relatively permanent waters: Defined as bodies of water (i.e., tributaries, lakes, and ponds) that are standing or continuously flowing year-round or at least during the wet season. The agencies intend to use the Web-based Water-Budget Interactive Modeling Program (WebWIMP) as a primary source for identifying the wet season at a particular location.
• Reestablish definition of tributary: Only “relatively permanent” tributaries that meet specified criteria are jurisdictional. Features such as channelized non-jurisdictional surface waters, subterranean rivers, culverts, dams, tunnels, or similar artificial features are not included in the definition of tributary.
• Add the definition of continuous surface connection: Jurisdiction under the CWA requires that wetlands abut a jurisdictional water and have a surface water present at least during the wet season. Note that the agencies are not proposing to revise the definition of “adjacent” which means “having a continuous surface connection”.
• Delete Intrastate: Removed as a standalone category; crossing state lines alone no longer confers jurisdiction.
• Reestablish the definition of waste treatment systems: Clarifies the exclusion for waste treatment systems. In general, waste treatment lagoons are excluded while cooling ponds and stormwater treatment features are not.
• Reestablish the definition of prior converted cropland: Clarifies that an exclusion is maintained unless the land is abandoned (i.e., not used for or in support of agricultural purposes in more than five years) and reverts to wetlands. Note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for making determinations as to whether land is prior converted cropland and the agencies will recognize a USDA determination when making their own determination for purposes of the CWA.
• Reestablish the definition of ditch: Clarifies that ditches constructed or excavated entirely in dry land are excluded. Note that the agencies have proposed the definition of ditch to mean “a constructed or excavated channel used to convey water”.
• Clarify exclusion for groundwater: Groundwater is explicitly excluded from WOTUS. The agencies propose to include an exclusion for groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems. Note that under the proposed rule, the exclusion would not apply to surface expressions of groundwater, such as where groundwater emerges on the surface and becomes baseflow in relatively permanent streams.

How Does This Impact Me?

Waterbodies under Federal jurisdiction may be subject to certain CWA programs such as the Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, the Section 404 permitting program for discharges of dredged or fill material, the Section 311 oil spill prevention, preparedness and response program, the Section 303 water quality standards and total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs, and the Section 401 State water quality process.

Although the proposed WOTUS update potentially impacts multiple CWA programs, it is not expected to have much impact on currently permitted dischargers. However, it may reduce the number of total permits issued – for example, the update is estimated to result in an 81% decrease in total wetland acreage subject to federal wetlands protections, which will lead to a decrease in permits and required mitigation under the 404 program. Another interesting consideration is how much flexibility states with differing hydrology will have in using “wet season” data to define what is a “relatively permanent water”.

How Can I submit comments?

A 45-day public comment period opened on November 20, 2025. All comments must be submitted by January 5, 2026. The preferred method of submission is via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or by email to OW-Docket@epa.gov. Both methods should identify Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2025–0322.

If you need support with CWA compliance in Kentucky and surrounding states, please reach out to William Shane at wshane@all4inc.com or 859-233-0123.

California OSHA 2025–2026 High-Hazard Industry List

Author: Joe Grosse

High-Hazard Industry List

On October 1^st, 2025 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA) High Hazard Unit (HHU) released its updated High-Hazard Industry List for Fiscal Years 2025–2026. The annual list identifies industry sectors across California that have experienced elevated rates of workplace injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work, restricted duty, or job transfer (DART). Listed industries have DART rates that significantly exceed the state’s private-sector average.

From our experience, those industries identified on the High-Hazard Industry list are targets for Cal OSHA inspections and enforcement activity.

Dart Rates

Annually, Cal OSHA analyzes injury and illness data from employers across the state to determine which industry sectors have the highest rates of serious injuries. The key metric used in this evaluation is the Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred, known as the DART rate. This is a standardized indicator of how frequently workers experience injuries or illnesses severe enough to cause lost workdays, restricted job duties, or transfers to different positions. The DART rate is calculated using the formula:

DART Rate = (Number of DART Cases × 200,000) ÷ Employee Hours Worked

The constant “200,000” represents the total number of hours worked by 100 employees annually (40 hours per week × 50 weeks × 100 employees). This allows Cal OSHA to normalize the rate across industries of varying sizes.

For this period, the private sector average DART rate was 2.0. Industries with DART rates greater than 200% of the average (or above 4.0) are designated as high hazard and may be targeted for Cal OSHA programmed inspections

High-Hazard Industry List

This list provides an overview of sectors where injury prevention efforts are most needed. Several industries stood out under Fiscal Year 2025’s list for having rates more than double the state average, including:

These elevated DART rates indicate that workers in these sectors experience a higher frequency of injuries and illnesses severe enough to cause lost or restricted workdays.

What This Means for Employers

Those under the High-Hazard Industry list do not conclusively indicate poor compliance. However, there is a potential for increased Cal OSHA attention and programmed inspections targeting facilities within these sectors.

Employers with California operations in affected industries should:

• Review their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) for completeness and alignment with Title 8 CCR §3203.
• Evaluate recent incident and near-miss trends to identify recurring hazards.
• Conduct targeted safety training and refresher programs for employees in high-risk areas.
• Verify proper recordkeeping on OSHA Form 300, 300A, and 301 logs.
• Engage safety consultants or internal auditors to proactively assess site-specific risks.

Why This Matters to Our Clients

This announcement is particularly relevant for clients with operations in the state of California, where Cal OSHA maintains one of the most robust and active enforcement programs in the country. Facilities falling within a listed NAICS code may experience increased inspection likelihood, particularly if they report recent injury cases or have limited safety documentation on file.

Our team continues to monitor regulatory developments from Cal OSHA’s HHU and offers tailored solutions to clients with operations in California. For assistance, contact our California office at (909) 483-3300, or reach out to our Health and Safety team at info@all4inc.com or (610) 933-5246.

Updates to the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance

Author: Erin Lee

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, the most commonly used standard of global carbon accounting, is evolving. For the first time in over a decade, the GHG Protocol organization, which is a partnership between the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is starting to revise how organizations calculate and disclose GHG emissions. These initial updates focus on the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance document. This guidance is incorporated into the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard by reference. Scope 2 emissions are those tied to the energy companies purchase from utilities rather than generating the energy themselves. Because electricity markets and renewable energy products have evolved significantly in recent years, the GHG Protocol is updating its guidance to reflect these changes. These changes are the start of a broader effort to bring harmony between the GHG Protocol and International Standard Organization (ISO) standards which have recently announced a strategic partnership. This blog will outline the changes to the GHG Protocol Scope 2 guidance document and how this will affect carbon accounting moving forward.

What Are Scope 2 Emissions?

Scope 2 emissions encompass the indirect emissions of purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. These emissions do not include GHG emissions generated from a company’s own operations or vehicles.  Accurately reporting this data helps organizations make smarter energy purchase choices, where to source power, where to improve efficiency, and where their actions can make the biggest difference.

There are currently two different calculation methodologies for calculating Scope 2 emissions:

• Market-based Methodology: This calculation methodology reflects the emissions from the specific energy contracts with a company and includes any renewable energy credits (REC) in the contracts.
• Location-based Methodology: This calculation methodology reflects the average emissions from the local electricity grid and does not include RECs.

What’s Changing in the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance Document?

The proposed updates aim to bring the GHG Protocol up to speed with the rapidly transforming grid, markets overflowing with RECs, and businesses under mounting pressure to tell a clearer climate story and to better align with ISO 14064 standards.

Key updates include:

• Location-based method emissions factor hierarchy
• Market-based method updates
  • Hourly matching and deliverability of contractual instruments used in the market-based method
  • Standard Supply Services (SSS) guidance
  • Residual mix emissions factors

The updates to location-based method emissions factor hierarchy add the “use of most precise location-based emissions factor accessible for which activity is also available” as a requirement. Accessible in this context means publicly available data that is free. This update would require companies to select an emissions factor that is the most “precise” to their area and activity data. For example, if there is an option between a national and local emissions factor the local emissions factor should be selected since it is the most precise data for the local grid. If there are emissions factors provided on an hourly and annual basis, a company should select the hourly factor since it is the most “precise,” but only if the activity data (e.g., electricity consumption) is also provided on the same cadence.

The goal of the updates to the market-based methods is to better align the GHG reduction claims with climate action as well as reduce the risk of double counting. In the revisions, any contractual instruments such as virtual power purchase agreements (VPPA) or RECs would be subject to hourly matching. Hourly matching is used to align a company’s clean energy purchases with its electricity consumption on an hourly basis rather than an annual basis. Accessibility to data at this frequency can be difficult, so the revisions allow companies to use load profiles to calculate these emissions retroactively and not in real time. There will be an exemption for smaller companies that do not have the capacity for this type of calculation, with the exact exemption to be determined after the public comment period.

There will also be bounds or limits on what electricity is considered to be plausibly part of the grid serving the company depending on where it is located. This will revise the current boundaries from being national borders to now being based on market boundaries, since some grids reach across national borders.

Under the current GHG Protocol, there was no detailed rule around Standard Supply Services (SSS). The goal of the SSS guidance is to ensure transparency of clean energy credits and prevention of double counting of these credits across multiple organizations. An entity purchasing clean energy from a utility provider can now only take credit for their proportional share of the clean energy. If a company wants to have more clean energy produced it must purchase additional clean energy credits.

The final revisions to the standard updates the residual mix emissions factors usage. This is to also avoid double counting of clean energy credits in the emissions factors and in contractual agreements. These revisions to the GHG Protocol guidance would eliminate the option to use grid-average emissions factors when no residual mix is available. When calculating market-based emissions, this must remove all claimed clean energy credits from the emissions factor. If there is no factor with the claimed clean energy credits removed, then a company will need to assume all the energy came from fossil fuel sources. This is to improve accuracy and transparency when disclosing information about energy sources and purchases.

Please note that all of these revisions are subject to change during the public comment period and are not considered final at this point.

How Could This Affect Companies’ GHG Goals?

For companies with active reduction plans or net-zero targets that utilize clean energy credits, these updates could shift how progress is calculated and communicated in the future. Organizations that rely heavily on RECs, for instance, may see changes in how their reductions are represented.

Potential impacts include:

• Changes in future Scope 2 emission totals based on revised rules
• More credibility of clean energy claims
• Reevaluation of clean energy credits for GHG emissions reduction pathways

This may be of concern for some companies that currently have clean energy credit or VPPA contractual agreements, but the GHG Protocol is proposing to have a legacy clause that would allow Scope 2 emissions reductions from existing contractual agreements to be properly recognized. This again will not be finalized until after the public comment period.

The alignment with ISO standards could simplify what has long been a tangled web of overlapping sustainability frameworks. A more unified approach means fewer redundancies, less confusion, and a clearer path toward credible, science-based progress. Overall, the goal is not to penalize companies but to improve comparability, reliability, and integrity in emissions reporting across the global economy.

What’s Next?

The GHG Protocol team has opened public comment until January 31, 2026. This allows for businesses, academia, policymakers, and sustainability professionals around the world to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. This open dialogue will shape the next evolution of the standard, with final updates expected in late 2027, but there is expected to be a phased approach with the implementation to ease reporting burdens. In the meantime, companies should begin:

• Reviewing current Scope 2 reporting processes
• Evaluating the role of RECs and renewable procurement programs
• Assessing data sources for completeness and quality
• Considering how updated guidance may affect targets and disclosures
• Ensuring contracts have clauses about the precision of the data provided
• Consider commenting on the standards to make them more appropriate for specific needs

It would be wise for companies to look inwards, reviewing their reporting process, understanding how their data is sourced, and identifying where these updates might ripple through their systems. Those that start preparing now will be better positioned for a smoother transition later.

The GHG Protocol Scope 2 updates signal a major milestone in the evolution of global climate reporting. By strengthening data quality, aligning methodologies with ISO standards, and clarifying renewable energy accounting, these revisions aim to create more transparent, credible, and globally consistent foundation for GHG disclosures. Climate reporting is no longer just about what is emitted, it’s about how we account for it, how we learn it, and how we build trust through transparency. Change always comes with adjustment, but in this case, it feels like progress.

ALL4 will continue to follow the changes to GHG Protocol standards closely, helping our clients navigate the evolving landscape of GHG reporting. For more information or support on preparing for the upcoming changes, please contact Daryl Whitt at dwhitt@all4inc.com, Louise Shaffer at lshaffer@all4inc.com or your ALL4 project manager.

2025 WQSM Seminar Insights

Author: Mallary Stroh

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) recently hosted the 2025 Water Quality and Stormwater (WQSM) Seminar, which brought together consultants, agency staff, and other stakeholders to discuss current challenges and program updates within the Water Quality Division (WQD). The seminar provided a detailed look at ongoing rulemakings, workload trends, permitting priorities, and new initiatives related to wastewater and stormwater.

Organization Changes and Staffing

On September 1^st, 2025, structural changes were implemented in the WQD to support growing program areas. WQD’s Permitting Section was reorganized into two sections: Industrial Wastewater and Domestic Wastewater. Additionally, an Oil and Gas Permitting Team was created under the Industrial Wastewater Section. The WQD also recruited new staff members to address this new workload distribution.

Despite these efforts, the WQD continues to face staffing pressures after a 25% turnover rate in the past year; this was after salary increases and other retention measures were implemented.

Workload and Application Trends

WQD’s workload continues to remain a challenge due to the large number of Treated Wastewater Discharge Permit (TPDES) applications in recent years:

• Fiscal Year (FY) 2022: 50 applications received
• FY2023: 80 applications received
• FY2024: 70 applications received

The mix of applications being sent to the WQD is something to note. One part of the mix is coastal desalination projects, which were touched on in the seminar due to their technical complexity and extensive modeling; for instance, sometimes weeks of water modeling are required, particularly for diffusers.

Additionally, domestic wastewater discharge applications have tended to accumulate, creating a review surge that can affect the permitting process timeline.

Growing Public Interest

There has been an increase in public engagement on water quality permits. Some of these trends include an increase in the quantity and complexity of comments during public notice periods and higher attendance at public meetings. The number of contested case hearings has more than doubled, growing from 14 in 2024 to 30 in 2025. This can impact the permitting process for clients by increasing the timeline and adding legal preparation costs.

Modeling and Review Challenges

Water quality modeling causes delays in permitting and was identified as a major challenge in the permit review process because there has been an increase in the complexity and quantity of applications.

In order to aid in this challenge, WQD is evaluating the third-party modeling option that could allow third parties to perform the required modeling for permitting, while TCEQ would review those modeling efforts. This would increase review efficiency and result in a more timely processing of TPDES applications.

Other Important Program Requirements

WQD reiterated a few policy and program requirements during the seminar including:

• Regionalization: A requirement where new domestic discharges must evaluate whether existing treatment plants in a defined radius can accept their wastewater discharge. This helps prevent a cluster of discharges.
• House Bill (HB 3333): Discharges are prohibited in certain river segments and drainage areas. The enrolled version of this bill can be found here.
• Treated Produced Wastewater: Applications for treated produced wastewater discharges are authorized through the Railroad Commissions of Texas (RRC) and coordinated with TCEQ under 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §7.117 (Memorandum of Understanding between RRC and TCEQ).

Legislative and Rulemaking Updates

TCEQ also provided updates on several bills that have been passed or are being considered in recent legislative sessions including:

• Authority granted to TCEQ for land application of produced water
  • TCEQ was granted the authority to issue permits for land application of produced water from mining and oil and gas extraction operations through Senate Bill (SB) 1145.
  • This applies to permits filed on or after September 1, 2025, and the enrolled version of the bill can be found here.
• Fast-tracking of liquefied natural gas export terminals
  • TCEQ implemented an expedited review process for applications to construct or modify liquefied natural gas export terminals and authorizes an additional expedited fee for applicants through SB 2037.
  • This applies to permits filed on or after September 1, 2025, and the enrolled version of the bill can be found here.
• Restrictions placed on general permit coverage for discharging waste
  • Facilities are restricted from applying for or maintaining coverage under general permits for discharging waste into or adjacent to Texas waters if the commission denies or suspends discharge under a general permit under SB 1302. Existing coverage could be suspended until compliance performance improves.
  • This applies to permits filed on or after September 1, 2025, and the enrolled version of the bill can be found here.
• General permits prohibited for high-level radioactive waste storage
  • TCEQ is prohibited from issuing general permit coverage for facilities engaged in storage of high-level radioactive waste through HB 4112. The agency will update applicable general permits to reflect this.
  • This applies to permits filed on or after September 1, 2025, and the enrolled version of the bill can be found here.
• Updates to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and commercial fertilizer definitions
  • New definitions for PFAS and amendments to the definitions of commercial fertilizer to include biosolids were proposed in SB 886.
  • This bill did not pass, but the introduced version can be found here.
• Updates to design criteria for domestic wastewater treatment systems and subsurface area drip disposal systems (SADDS)
  • Updates to Chapter 217 were proposed including requirements for treatment processes, definitions, and standards for new technologies.
  • Updates to Chapter 222 were proposed including design criteria for SADDS and ensuring upstream treatment units meet Chapter 217 standards.
  • 2026 is the proposal target.
• Updates to implementation procedures (IPs)
  • Updates to TCEQ’s Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (RG-194) were proposed including definitions, human health criteria permit limits, temporary standards, and bacteria criteria.
  • 2026 is the proposal target.

Oil and Gas Wastewater Permitting

Updates to the framework on managing discharges of treated, produced water were provided at this seminar. Produced water volumes are enormous because with every barrel of oil produced, there are approximately seven barrels of water generated. Because Texas produces about four million barrels of oil every day, that means there are over one billion gallons of water produced daily. Given Texas’s projected six-million-acre-foot water shortage by 2026, treated produced water could help with water management solutions.

Permitting for produced water discharges differs between the water-rich east and the arid west of the 98^th meridian in the United States. Currently, however, there is limited produced water being discharged to surface water as most of it is being reinjected using wells. To expand downstream water availability, TCEQ is developing a permitting pathway to encourage and streamline produced water discharges to surface waters within watersheds. Proposed updates to the permitting pathway around produced water discharges include:

• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): Being established “in reverse,” meaning limits are being established before extensive discharge data collection.
• Tiered Discharge Volumes: Initial discharge volumes will start at around 300,000 gallons per day (GPD), with a potential increase up to 1 million GPD after six months of demonstrated compliance. This allows for an iterative evaluation of environmental impacts on surface water.
• Treatment Requirements: Treatment trains will be required to remove/treat pollutants such as metals, naturally occurring radioactive metals (NORM), and volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (VOC/SVOC).
• No Dilution or Mixing: Discharges where effluent flow may exceed the receiving water flow will be required to operate without dilution or mixing.
• Non-Compliance Reporting: Persistent or consecutive non-compliance events with trigger corrective action plan (CAP) requirements.

Upcoming Milestones

• Draft Texas Multi-Sector General Permit (TXR050000): Published November 14^th, beginning a 30-day public comment period. A public meeting will be held on December 15^th in Austin, Texas.
• Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Proposed updates will be released in Spring 2025.

Final Thoughts

For industrial clients navigating these changes to Texas’ water quality programs, ALL4 offers support to ensure compliance with both state and federal requirements. If you have any questions or would like to discuss how ALL4 can help you with these efforts, please reach out to Cody Fridley at 269.716.6537 or cfridley@all4inc.com.

Waste Compliance Fundamentals for Data Centers

Author: Cambre Codington

Data Centers are hardware-intensive, fast-evolving operations with regulated materials moving through them every day. Some of the more common compliance risks arise from the wastes they generate: electronic waste (including printed circuit boards); batteries; coolants and oils, such as propylene glycol and transformer oil; and contractor-managed materials. Organizations can mitigate risk through comprehensive physical asset management, robust contractor work-plan evaluations, and vendor alignment with federal and state regulatory frameworks.

Electronic Waste (E-Waste):

Rapid refreshes (e.g., servers, cooling gear, printed circuit boards) generate waste streams that can pose a hazard to the public or the environment if not managed appropriately. Federal regulations allow for many exemptions from the solid waste requirements, such that the generator manages the material properly. As an example, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(14) classifies shredded printed circuit boards sent for recycling as excluded from the solid waste definition, provided they are stored to prevent releases and all mercury-containing components and nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) or lithium batteries are removed for separate recycling or disposal, and that removal is documented before shredding.

States can manage waste more strictly than what Federal rules require, creating variability in requirements for data centers. California classifies numerous e-waste items as a special classification subject to particular handling obligations. The state oversees the disposal of “covered electronic devices” pursuant to the Electronic Waste Recycling Act (EWRA). The program, enacted in 2003, is administered by CalRecycle and mandates compliance with specific procedures for notifications, waste management, and reporting. New York’s Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) modernized its Electronic Equipment Recycling and Reuse rules in 2022, strengthening manufacturer take-back responsibilities. These state-specific programs shape what facilities can store and ship and often restrict landfill disposal while encouraging proper management of materials through recycling.

Batteries:

Federally, most batteries can be managed as Universal Waste (40 CFR Part 273), simplifying labeling and accumulation, as long as the batteries remain intact. Although batteries can be shipped and disposed of as Universal Waste, they are still considered hazardous. Universal wastes are considered hazardous because they can harm human health and the environment if not handled properly. The universal waste category was established to simplify the collection, management, and recycling of these waste materials for businesses and households.

The handling of hazardous materials is regulated under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)’s Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 171 through 180). These regulations provide handlers with a guide for safe packaging requirements for hazardous materials. As the amount of materials increase along with their hazardous properties, the packaging requirements also become stricter. The packaging for damaged, defective, or recalled (DDR) lithium batteries can be found under 173.185(f), as well as guidance from recent PHMSA interpretations. In California, AB 2440 (Responsible Battery Recycling Act of 2022) on battery stewardship and SB 1215 (Covered Battery-Embedded Products) are phasing in producer programs and fees. As states roll out battery extended producer responsibility (EPR), facilities can expect evolving take-back options through original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and state programs. These programs aim to lower disposal costs but require enrollment with approved vendors and maintain the strict shipping and packaging requirements by DOT.

Propylene Glycol Coolants/Antifreeze:

Data Centers that generate waste spent propylene glycol (PG) or dielectric fluids are responsible for properly characterizing these waste streams under federal and local hazardous waste regulations, often using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)-approved methods such as the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to determine if they exhibit toxicity. Effective waste characterization through the review of analytical results, Safety Data Sheets (SDS), or process knowledge is key in maintaining a safe, clean work environment and preventing unnecessary accumulation of materials and waste. Mischaracterizing the waste can lead to U.S. EPA violations and while transport, disposal, and recycling companies may perform their own analyses, the generator of the waste retains primary responsibility for accurate waste characterization.

Coolants and antifreeze, typically used in engines, often contain metals and additives that may push them into the “hazardous waste” category under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Even if a waste stream determination shows non-hazardous, it is important to maintain the waste analysis results and re-test after chemical or process changes.

State nuances include: California frequently treats used antifreeze and coolants as state-hazardous; Washington regulates spent antifreeze as dangerous waste unless properly recycled, which can reduce generator counts; Massachusetts requires generator determinations and encourages recycling with periodic checks. Oregon, Colorado, and New York’s aggressive e-waste frameworks often coincide with closer scrutiny of coolants during decommissions.

Generator Responsibility:

Under RCRA’s cradle-to-grave system, the generator (by site) is responsible, even when contractors create waste on facility property. Tighten contracts to assign removal and manifest authority and manage any contractor-left drums within on-site accumulation standards according to your facility’s hazardous waste generator category.

Compliance Recommendations:

• Use universal waste rules where allowed;
• Remove batteries and mercury components before printed circuit board shredding;
• Maintain current lab-backed profiles for PG and other coolant fluids, using closed-loop recycling when available;
• Vet transporters and recyclers for permits and financial assurance; and
• For lithium shipments, follow 40 CFR 173.185, treating DDR units as a distinct risk operationally.

If you have any questions about waste-related requirements at your data center or the actions your facility should take next, please contact me at ccodington@all4inc.com. ALL4 is available to assist with waste evaluations, program enhancements, and any other environmental compliance needs your facility may have.

A Presidential Exemption for the Coke Ovens Rules

Author: Dustin Snare

ALL4 has covered the amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) and Coke Oven Batteries (COB) at 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CCCCC and L in previous articles. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published final amendments to the NESHAP for Coke Ovens in the Federal Register on July 5, 2024 (Coke Ovens Rules). The revisions are a result of the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated risk and technology review (RTR) for PQBS and the technology review for COB and they address previously unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and HAP emissions sources. Approximately 70% of steel is made from metallurgical coke; the coke industry is therefore seen as vital to building and maintaining critical infrastructure and military readiness. On November 21, 2025, President Trump made a proclamation that provides “regulatory relief for certain stationary sources to promote American coke oven processing security” (Proclamation). The Proclamation made 11 facilities exempt from compliance with certain requirements of the Coke Ovens Rules for a period of two years beyond the relevant compliance dates.

The basis of this exemption relieves severe burdens on the coke production industry from compliance with standards premised on the application of emissions-control technologies that do not yet exist in a commercially demonstrated or cost-effective form. The timeline to implement testing and monitoring was deemed an unacceptable risk that threatened facility closures, production halts, and lasting harm to the domestic coke production industry that would lead to national security issues including substantially impacting the local and national economy.

Six of the 11 facilities received extensions for the following requirements of the Coke Ovens Rules:

• Fenceline monitoring, root cause and corrective action, and related reporting requirements;
• Limits on leaks from coke oven battery doors, lids, and offtakes and related reporting requirements; and
• New Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and work practice standards for coke oven pushing and battery stacks and related performance testing and reporting requirements.

The original compliance date for the fenceline monitoring and limits on leaks requirements was July 7, 2025. The Proclamation extends compliance with those requirements to July 7, 2027. Facilities may have started to implement monitoring or leak limit calculations but could have been experiencing issues implementing the required effort for each. The Proclamation was issued prior to the date that any reporting requirements were due to be submitted. Compliance with the MACT and work practice standards has been extended from July 7, 2027 to July 7, 2029.

Five of the 11 facilities received extensions (from July 7, 2027 to July 7, 2029) for the following requirements of the Coke Ovens Rules:

• MACT numeric emissions limits for existing sources;
• Opacity limits for bypass/waste heat stacks on existing sources;
• Initial performance test requirements; and
• Method 303A and daily pressure monitoring.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MY FACILITY?

If you were one of the 11 facilities associated with this Proclamation, your facility now has an additional two years (or actually 19 months as the two-year extensions are retroactive from past compliance dates in some cases) to comply with the Coke Ovens Rules. This should be seen as extra time to plan your compliance approach and implement compliance strategies.

HOW CAN ALL4 HELP?

As your facility advances closer toward implementation of the Coke Ovens Rules, ALL4 can assist with MACT determinations, performance testing, monitoring assistance for opacity or pressure, and fenceline monitoring. We can also help with strategy around implementation of the many other requirements U.S. EPA has added to the NESHAP (e.g., new standards, electronic reporting, and removal of startup/shutdown/malfunction exemptions). For more information on the Coke Ovens MACT requirements please contact Dustin Snare at dsnare@all4inc.com / 610.422.1126. Please do not hesitate to reach out for assistance!