In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin addressed top state environmental officials, highlighting the Agency’s priorities for the year ahead. Without committing the EPA to an official stance, Zeldin reaffirmed his commitment to “cooperative federalism” by engaging with states on environmental challenges ranging from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to permitting reform at the Environmental Council of States Spring Meeting. At the meeting, Zeldin told state officials the EPA is in the process of figuring out how to best address concerns coming from water utilities regarding the timing and funding of the substantial infrastructure investment required to meet the Biden-era PFAS standards.
Zeldin, a former congressman from Long Island, New York, expressed support for federal action on PFAS contamination back in 2021 and maintains that PFAS are a “big concern of [his].” However, his recent statements and the agency’s current posture suggest that a potential recalibration of the EPA’s approach could be forthcoming. For example, in early 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted 60-day litigation stays in two key cases challenging Biden-era PFAS regulations. The stays—issued at the EPA’s request—pause legal proceedings over the agency’s PFAS drinking water standards and its designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The underlying lawsuits, brought by industry and utility groups, argue the rules are scientifically flawed, legally overreaching and financially burdensome.
By April 8, the EPA is expected to decide whether to maintain or revise its maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFAS compounds as the first stay ends. American Water Works Association (AWWA), et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The Agency’s Office of Water originally developed the drinking water rule and is now set to be led by Jessica Kramer (nominated Feb. 11, 2025), who previously lobbied on behalf of the oil and gas industry and water utilities.
Meanwhile, the EPA only has to the end of the month to decide the same fate for the second stay, one that will determine whether the Agency will go forward with the expansion of regulatory enforcement under CERCLA. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. EPA, et al., No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
While Zeldin affirmed the Agency’s overarching commitment to addressing PFAS, he stopped short of endorsing any specific rulemaking path forward, and as the April 8 decision looms, stakeholders are preparing for potential shifts in the regulatory landscape. Any changes to EPA’s PFAS rulemaking could have far-reaching implications for compliance strategies, enforcement priorities, and environmental liability across the country.
Pillsbury attorneys will continue to monitor EPA’s PFAS rulemaking, ongoing litigation and broader developments in environmental regulation.
[View source.]
