During the first quarter of 2025, there were several regulatory developments involving federal and California agencies. These updates are summarized in the following sections.

FEDERAL REGULATORY UPDATES

Bureau of Land Management

Records of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse

On January 17, 2025, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced the availability of the Records of Decision (RODs) for the and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide Planning in Oregon and Colorado. The BLM Principal Deputy Director signed the RODs, which constitute the decisions of the BLM to approve the RMP Amendments, on January 15, 2024, making the updated RMP effective immediately.

The RODs/Approved RMP Amendments enhance the conservation of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Oregon and Colorado by introducing management measures that protect sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats on BLM-managed lands. The approved conservation measures will support the preservation of greater sage-grouse in western regions, as well as approximately 350 additional wildlife species that also rely on sagebrush habitats. The amendments build upon previous strategies established by the BLM in 2015 and 2019, integrating the latest scientific data to achieve a balanced approach that promotes habitat preservation alongside responsible land use activities.

The amendments were developed using a rangewide approach—including collaboration with 10 states, as well as tribal governments, local communities, and public stakeholders—to ensure that conservation strategies are comprehensive and reflective of regional priorities.

Additionally, the BLM is prepared to issue RODs for North Dakota, South Dakota, and California. The BLM is also closely coordinating with wildlife managers in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming to finalize state-specific conservation plans for sagebrush habitats. Until the new RODs are implemented in these states, land management will continue under the guidelines established in the 2015 RMPs.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

The United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced its proposal to designate 760,071 acres of critical habitat for four distinct population segments of foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)in California. Of the 760,071 proposed acres, the USFWS has proposed 192,275 acres for the federally threatened North Feather population, 249,942 acres for the federally threatened Central Coast population, 307,777 acres for the federally endangered South Sierra population, and 10,777 acres for the federally endangered South Coast population.

Recognized by its distinctive yellow stomach and the underside of its rear legs, the foothill yellow-legged frog inhabits regions ranging from Oregon to Southern California. However, foothill yellow-legged frog populations have suffered significant declines due to altered waterflows caused by dams and water diversions, as well as predation and competition from invasive species like crayfish and bullfrogs. Additional threats include climate change-related temperature and precipitation shifts, water-related recreational activities, high-severity wildfires, and general habitat degradation.

The USFWS-proposed critical habitat encompasses streams, rivers, and surrounding areas essential for the foothill yellow-legged frogs’ survival, providing necessary spaces for shelter, foraging, breeding, and movement. These critical habitat areas are intended to promote the long-term conservation of the four at-risk population segments.

The public comment period to provide feedback on the proposal to designate critical habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog was open from January 14 through March 17, 2025.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for San Francisco Bay-Delta Longfin Smelt

The USFWS announced its proposal to designate 91,630 acres of critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (DPS) of the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). The longfin smelt is a small iridescent fish that is typically found along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. from Alaska to California. The San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS of the longfin smelt is commonly found in fresh and saltwater open water habitats from the San Francisco Bay estuary to the Farallon Islands.

Due to significant population declines throughout the San Francisco Bay estuary in recent decades, the San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS of the longfin smelt was listed as federally endangered in July 2024. The USFWS-proposed critical habitat includes key areas within the San Francisco Bay estuary with the intention of protecting essential features such as temperature, food availability, suitable water flow, and appropriate turbidity. These features are crucial in supporting the successful spawning and rearing of the San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS of the longfin smelt.

The public comment period to provide feedback on the proposal to designate critical habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS of the longfin smelt was open from January 15 through March 16, 2025.

Executive Office

Executive Orders Impacting Energy Sectors

Following his second-term inauguration, President Trump has issued a series of Executive Orders (EOs) that potentially affect the energy and transportation sectors. These directives focus on promoting domestic energy development by reducing regulatory barriers, expediting federal approvals, and streamlining processes for resource extraction and energy generation.

EO 14156 declares a national energy emergency, instructing federal agencies to use emergency powers to expedite the identification, leasing, extraction, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources. The EO defines “energy” or “energy resources” to include crude oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, geothermal heat, and biofuels, while excluding wind and solar energy.

Additionally, EO 14154 seeks to remove regulatory impediments to domestic energy production. The EO mandates the rescission of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation regulations and directs federal agencies to prioritize energy development on federal lands and waters. For more information on this EO, refer to the NEPA section of this update.

The Presidential Memorandum titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” calls for a temporary halt on all new federal rules without approval from the administration. The memorandum also withdrawals pending review from the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a result, several Endangered Species Act (ESA) related rules have been rescinded, and further rulemaking activity has been paused.

The Presidential Memorandum titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects” suspends approvals for offshore and onshore wind energy projects. The Department of the Interior and other relevant agencies are prohibited from issuing new leases, permits, rights-of-way, or renewals for wind projects until the administration completes an economic and environmental impact assessment. No timeline has been provided for the completion of the assessment. 

National Environmental Policy Act

Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act

On February 19, 2025, the Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum outlining the implementation of EO 14154. Signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, EO 14154 directs federal agencies to expedite and simplify the permitting process under NEPA. The memorandum highlights key changes introduced by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) and provides guidance for agencies to revise their NEPA procedures accordingly.

Key changes and updates include:

• Expedited Permitting Process: Federal agencies are mandated to prioritize efficiency in environmental reviews, revising NEPA procedures to comply with strict FRA deadlines.
• Recission of Previous NEPA Regulations: CEQ has rescinded previous NEPA regulations, including 40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508. Agencies are encouraged to rely on the 2020 rule as an initial framework for their revised procedures while aligning with the updated guidance and legal requirements.
• Clarification on Environmental Impact Statements (EISs): Congress clarified the requirements for EISs in Section 102 of NEPA as part of the FRA amendments. Congress also added Section 106, a new section that clarifies that there are certain situations when environmental documents are not required.
• Lead Agency Designation and Interagency Coordination: New provisions under Section 107 mandate the appointment of lead agencies to ensure a single, coordinated environmental document for projects requiring multiple federal actions. Page limits for EISs and Environmental Assessments are now specified.
• Elimination of Environmental Justice Analysis: The revocation of EOs 14096 and 12898 removes the requirement for environmental justice analysis and considerations from NEPA documents.

Section 106 introduces specific scenarios where environmental documentation may no longer be required. Additionally, agencies are now permitted to rely on existing scientific data rather than conducting new research for NEPA compliance, reducing duplicative studies and accelerating project timelines.

These changes are expected to facilitate faster project approvals, shorten environmental review periods, and minimize the emphasis on environmental justice considerations. The changes will also likely result in a greater reliance on existing scientific data.

To comply with these changes, federal agencies must update their NEPA procedures by February 19, 2026.

Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality Court Case Decision

On February 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a ruling in Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality, invalidating the former President Biden Administration’s Phase 2 NEPA rule. The court determined that the CEQ overstepped its authority when it first promulgated NEPA regulations in 1978.

Historically, it was widely accepted that CEQ had the authority to issue NEPA regulations, following former President Jimmy Carter’s EO 11991 in 1977. While this practice was changed with President Trump’s first administration, it was reinstated by the former President Biden’s administration, along with the adoption of the Phase 2 NEPA regulation. Phase 2 NEPA regulations introduced new statutory amendments to NEPA, adding new requirements for agencies to conduct climate and environmental justice analyses.

In the Marin Audubon v. Federal Aviation Administration case, the Supreme Court ruled that that Congress never explicitly granted CEQ with rulemaking authority. In Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality, the North Dakota District Court concurred with the Marin Audubon v. Federal Aviation Administration ruling, stating that the CEQ’s role is limited to offering recommendations rather than establishing enforceable regulations.

Implications of the Marin Audubon v. Federal Aviation Administration and Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality cases include:

• Lack of Regulatory Guidance: Without CEQ regulations, federal agencies may face uncertainty when determining the appropriate level of environmental review under NEPA, potentially leading to inconsistent decision-making.
• Delayed Decision-Making: The absence of a confirmed CEQ director may prolong uncertainty and slow agency operations.
• Legal Challenges: Courts may encounter difficulties in reviewing past NEPA decisions, as many relied on the now-invalidated CEQ regulations.
• Project Developer Arguments: Project proponents may argue that specific analyses were discretionary rather than mandatory, complicating legal challenges against environmental reviews.

STATE REGULATORY UPDATES

California Public Utilities Commission

General Order 131-E

As previously discussed in our California Public Utilities Commission Adopts General Order 131-E article, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted General Order (GO) 131-E, updating rules for the CPUC’s electrical infrastructure permitting processes. GO 131-E supersedes GO 131-D and became effective on January 30, 2025.

GO 131-E makes it faster and easier to build electric transmission projects in California by setting forth clearer rules for permitting, approving, and building electric transmission lines, substations, and generation facilities. The streamlined process aims to reduce delays and facilitate more efficient planning and construction for electrical infrastructure projects.

Key provisions of the decision include:

• Allowing electrical transmission project applicants to prepare draft versions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents with their applications, including Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigated Negative Declarations, or Negative Declarations. This alternative aims to expedite environmental review by enabling applicants to complete more of the analysis before filing their applications.
• Requiring pre-filing consultations with CPUC staff at least 6 months before submitting their transmission project applications, fostering better preparation and a smoother application process.
• Authorizing a pilot program to track the CPUC’s CEQA review timelines, established to explore a faster CEQA review process for select projects.
• Implementing presumption of need for projects, per Assembly Bill 1373, which will apply when the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has determined that a project is needed. If the CAISO process has already determined that a project is needed, the CPUC will defer to that determination, which will avoid duplicative need determinations.

The decision also modernizes reporting requirements, simplifies advice letter protests, and clarifies key definitions to ensure regulatory consistency. These updates build on the initial phase of reforms adopted in December 2023, further aligning CPUC regulations with legislative mandates under Senate Bill 529 and Assembly Bill 1373.

On March 10, 2025, a petition for rehearing was filed by jointly by Protect Our Communities Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity, Action Town Council, California Bureau Federation, Anza-Borrego Foundation, and Defenders of Wildlife. Following the petition, on March 25, 2025, responses to the rehearing application were submitted by CAISO, LS Power, ACP, CEERT, and a joint response by San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. On April 8, 2025, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club filed requests for intervenor compensation for contribution. To date, a prehearing conference has not yet been set.