On June 4, 2025, Latham & Watkins and Integral Consulting discussed regulatory, insurance, and litigation developments for wildfires in 2025.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Robin M. Hulshizer, and Steven B. Lesan

In light of the recent California wildfires, companies in the state and across the nation must navigate more complex regulatory regimes when managing and responding to wildfire risks. In addition, wildfires continue to be a serious threat to the public and environment, affecting air quality, amplifying the

The decision emphasizes the importance of judicial deference to agencies on NEPA and narrows the scope of environmental analyses.

By Nikki Buffa, Devin M. O’Connor, Jennifer K. Roy, Janice M. Schneider, Reilly Nelson, and Samantha Yeager

On May 29, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a decision (Decision) in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 (2025), significantly narrowing the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act

Supremacy Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause claims against SB 253 and SB 261 were dismissed, while claims under the First Amendment proceed to discovery.

By Joshua Bledsoe, Nikki Buffa, Betty M. Huber, and Matthew Green

On February 3, 2025, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.,1 the US District Court for the Central District of California granted the state’s motion to dismiss the

Finch v. Surrey calls for assessment of all likely direct and indirect environmental effects in EIAs, including certain Scope 3 emissions if a reasonable estimate is feasible.

By Paul A. Davies, Michael D. Green, Stephanie Forrest, and James Bee

On 20 June 2024, the UK Supreme Court (the Court) in Finch v. Surrey CC [2024] UKSC 20 considered whether certain downstream emissions fell within the scope of direct or indirect environmental effects for the purposes of an

The court’s decision is the latest development in the litigation over the SEC’s final rules, which have faced numerous legal challenges since their adoption.

By Paul A. Davies, Sarah E. Fortt, and Betty M. Huber

On March 15, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently finalized climate disclosure rules, in response to a March 8 request.[1] Petitioners had requested the stay in light

The agency’s two recent actions introduce enhanced restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons and provide a series of compliance dates for industry stakeholders.

By Stacey VanBelleghem and Jennifer Garlock

On October 5, 2023, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two rules, one final and one proposed, to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act). The agency’s recent actions represent major steps in the Biden administration’s goal to significantly reduce HFCs over the next decade.

HFCs are a group of chemical refrigerants and potent greenhouse gasses (GHGs), commonly used in foam products, cooling systems, aerosols, and fire suppressants. International focus on managing these compounds sharpened in the 1980s, when countries agreed in the Montreal Protocol to shift global markets away from the ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — the then dominant strain of refrigerant and aerosol chemicals — toward HFCs. Although HFCs are less damaging to the ozone layer than CFCs, they have global warming potential (GWP) values (a figure that allows comparison of relative climate impact of a GHG) hundreds or thousands times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a GWP equal to 1. In 2016, nearly 200 countries adopted the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol agreeing to a global phasedown of production and use of HFCs. The US ratified that amendment on October 31, 2022.