91��ý

On July 23-25, 2026, the Foundation for Natural 91��ý and Energy Law (FNREL) hosted the 72nd Annual Natural 91��ý and Energy Law Institute in Seattle, Washington. Several members of the GWC team attended the event along with eight Colorado Law students.

Highlights from Section Sessions

Over the course of three days, students and staff attended lectures from different sections in the morning. These included the Environmental Law, Renewable Energy, Oil and Gas, Mining, Public Lands and Indian Law, and Water Law sections. Topics ranged from judicial, legislative, and regulatory updates to evolving environmental litigation strategies. The lectures presented on papers published by the speakers and offered different perspectives on major developments in environmental law today.��

Some standout sessions included a discussion of the EPA’s Deregulatory Initiative following the March 12, 2025 Deregulation Announcement. Presenter Clarissa Howley Mills discussed the key initiatives to watch that stand to pose significant litigation risk. This includes power generation and greenhouse-gas emission standards for power plants, climate change and the final rule repealing the “endangerment” finding under the Clean Air Act, and a discussion of the competing values the EPA must navigate to regulate PFAS. Mills also highlighted the competing narratives surrounding the pivot in enforcement prioritizing compliance. The primary tension is drawn between the most efficient use of resources and effective deterrence strategies.��

The session, Beyond the Citizen Suit -- Evolving Environmental NGO Strategies Amid Federal Deregulation, given by Alex Schluntz and Courtney Shepherd, looked at the role of NGOs and citizen suits amidst the changes in the federal approach to enforcement, the widening gap between violations and federal enforcement, and the potential shrinking of the enforcement landscape should these regulatory frameworks survive judicial review. Considering the changing regulatory landscape, the speakers discussed key areas for NGOs to consider for strategy development. These include using resources wisely, monitoring which cases are filed, emphasizing place-based advocacy, being selective about targets, and setting manageable goals. To secure lasting outcomes, they talked about increased state-level engagement to be more insulated and provide more procedural access points. While uncertainties have arisen out of Loper Bright, this decision does not apply to state court review of state regulations. They predicted that rulemaking will be an increasingly important tool at the state level that could help shape nationwide action. They advised regulated entities to expect multi-layered scrutiny, engage early, watch related proceedings, and to consider their reputation when decision-making.��

General Sessions Key Takeaways��

The general sessions addressed broader, widely applicable topics and relevant changes in the field. The Annual Environmental Law Update given by Hannah Roskey covered changes in environmental law in the past year.��

On February 18, 2026, the EPA finalized the rescission of the endangerment finding. Since 2009, the EPA has promulgated and enforced Clean Air Act regulations based on the finding in Massachusetts v. EPA��that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. So far, this only applies to regulations pertaining to mobile sources. As for stationary sources, following the Big Beautiful Bill Act, the EPA has proposed to remove all greenhouse gas reporting requirements for all source categories except those subject to the Waste Emissions Charge (WEC). However, this has not necessarily been received as positive for industry, as reporting requirements are required to participate in international markets.��

In November 2025, the EPA published a rule that revised the definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act, which largely adopted the court’s view in ���������ٳ���decided in 2023. The court defined the “waters” subject to the Clean Water Act as only those which are “relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water.” Significantly, the court invalidated the "significant nexus” standard for wetlands and streams that had previously allowed USACE to regulate such waterbodies under the Clean Water Act based on their ecological connectivity. Instead, wetlands must have a continuous surface connection to one of the Waters of the United States to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.��

There have been both administrative and judicial developments to NEPA. The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) was created by NEPA to provide the President with guidance on taking action and developing environmental policy in accordance with the Act. However, for decades, CEQ has issued rules and regulations regarding NEPA compliance for agencies to follow that have been largely accepted and treated as persuasive rulemaking authority. In a recent executive order, CEQ was directed to remove NEPA regulations and limited the window for public comment.��

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County called for a NEPA “course-correction.” This narrowed the scope of federal environmental review when implementing NEPA procedures. The Court clarified that the requisite “hard look” called for broad agency deference so long as an agency has taken “reasonable” steps to evaluate environmental impacts.��

The broad range of topics covered in the three days was an excellent opportunity to expand on existing areas of knowledge and to gain exposure to novel aspects of environmental law. A more detailed breakdown of the sessions offered and speaker bios can be found here:��.��

Reflections on Student Opportunities��

FNREL has been a great resource for law students looking to pursue environmental law. The Foundation provides free student memberships and sponsors students to attend the annual institute. FNREL also awards scholarships, which four Colorado Law students received. These recipients include: Alexis Padilla (2027), Celeste Baro (2027), Corrine Griffith (2027), and Mallory Tope-Lewis (2028).��

Sessions tailored to students and young professionals allowed for exposure to a wide variety of practice areas and networking opportunities. The student panel was an opportunity to start a conversation with J.D. recipients who had taken different paths within the field of environmental law. In general, the panel advised students to develop and maintain their network, emphasized that a healthy, sustainable work-life balance is highly individual, spoke about how to advocate for yourself and set boundaries in the workplace, and that there are many ways to have a career in environmental law.��

Portia’s Lunch for Women offered a unique, sit-down networking opportunity for women in environmental law to connect with the female-identifying students in attendance. Over lunch, our students talked with practicing attorneys about their careers, how their identity as a woman has impacted their career trajectory, and the importance of mentorship. It was particularly impactful when an attorney shared that she had gotten her current job through a woman she met at this lunch several years ago. She then revealed that same woman was sitting next to her while she told this story. Overall, this lunch was a great chance to see the existing network for women in environmental law and demonstrated the importance of developing and maintaining relationships.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we would like to give a special thank you to FNREL for hosting this event and facilitating this opportunity for our students. We appreciated the opportunity to gain exposure to different areas of environmental law, attend in-depth lectures on particular areas of interest, connect with other students pursuing environmental law, and to expand our legal network.