This week, the Environmental Protection Agency made waves with its decision to retain the controversial designation of two PFAS chemicals—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substances under federal law, insisting that polluters must be held accountable for cleanup costs. According to legal analysts at Holland & Knight, this announcement on September 17th came with a major procedural update: the EPA asked the federal court to lift the pause—known as abeyance—on the rule’s implementation, and the court agreed on October 2nd, setting a new deadline of December 5th for final legal arguments. But the agency isn’t stopping there. The EPA is working on a new framework to standardize how future substances are designated hazardous—a move aimed at providing clarity but also at easing concerns over sweeping liability for businesses and local governments, particularly water utilities and farmers.

On the regulatory front, the EPA’s updated Unified Agenda, released in late September, maps out a multi-pronged strategy to control PFAS—those so-called ‘forever chemicals.’ In October, the agency plans to propose extending the compliance deadline for public water systems under last year’s drinking water rule, while also narrowing the scope to focus on just two chemicals. This revision, first announced in May 2025, means thousands of water utilities may see their compliance burdens lightened, at least for now. But critics worry that by removing certain PFAS compounds from mandatory monitoring, the EPA may be leaving some communities at risk. Meanwhile, the agency is signaling tighter controls for industrial discharges, with new rules expected in November and January that will require more reporting and tougher limits for chemical manufacturers—especially in plastics and synthetic fibers sectors.

But the biggest shakeup might be on the climate front. The Trump administration is advancing what some are calling the most sweeping deregulatory agenda in EPA history. In June, the agency proposed repealing Obama-era greenhouse gas standards for power plants, arguing that emissions from fossil fuel plants do not significantly contribute to air pollution—a dramatic reversal of long-standing federal policy. Then, just this August, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed ditching the 2009 endangerment finding, the legal foundation for all federal climate action since the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision. If finalized, this would pull the rug out from under existing emissions standards for cars, trucks, and power plants, fundamentally reshaping America’s climate regulatory landscape.

These moves are already shaking the business world. Industries facing tougher PFAS rules must prepare for new compliance costs and scrutiny, while power companies and automakers may see decades of environmental regulation rolled back. But for local governments—especially public water systems—the outlook is mixed. On the one hand, some will benefit from eased PFAS testing requirements. On the other, uncertainties about liability and cleanup costs remain, and many worry about bearing the burden if major polluters aren’t forced to pay.

For American families, these changes could have real-world consequences—cleaner water in some areas, but potentially less protection from emerging contaminants and weaker climate safeguards. Environmental groups are gearing up for legal battles, while impacted businesses and local governments are urged to monitor regulatory updates closely. If you’re a concerned citizen, now’s the time to weigh in: the EPA is actively seeking public comment on several of these rules, and elected officials may soon debate new liability protections for water utilities and others.

Looking ahead, watch for draft PFAS rules in October and November, and the December legal deadline regarding the hazardous substance rule. To stay informed, visit the EPA’s official newsroom, or follow updates from...