.

Marcus is a Chambers USA-rated attorney assisting clients across the country with real estate and construction transactions.

Marcus co-chairs Dorsey’s Real Estate and Land Use Practice Group as well as its Development and Infrastructure Industry Group. In both in-house and outside counsel capacities, Marcus has deep and extensive experience with all aspects of real estate development, acquisitions/dispositions, investment funds, leasing, financing, governmental assistance and entitlements, and construction contracts. He regularly serves clients as outside general counsel, advises companies on regulatory compliance, and represents clients before public authorities and city councils regarding approvals and land use issues.

In addition to being a Fellow in both the American College of Real Estate Attorneys (ACREL) and the Construction Lawyers Society of America (CLSA), Marcus is a frequent speaker at legal and industry events and conferences and has served as an adjunct law professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

Marcus served as General Counsel for Opus North Corporation, where he advised corporate boards and executive management on a wide range of issues relating to business and corporate law, joint ventures, real estate, construction, and finance. Previously, he served as Senior Counsel for Target Corporation, focusing on new store development and existing site issues.

Select Experience

  • Served as general counsel and subsequently outside general counsel for Opus North Corporation, providing representation regarding every aspect of its business including development, construction and property management.
  • Development of a $100 million downtown Minneapolis hotel and condominium complex involving a historic renovation, a five-parcel land assemblage, and negotiation of more than $10 million in tax increment financing and other governmental subsidies.
  • Representation of the Walker Art Center and Minneapolis Institute of Arts with their respective expansion efforts.
  • Responsible for negotiation of design/build and construction contracts on throughout the country in excess of $1.5 billion dollars.

Education

  • University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 1995)
  • St. Olaf College (B.A., 1991)

Bar Admissions

  • Minnesota

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
  • Real Property Law Specialist, Minnesota State Bar Association

Professional Affiliations

  • American College of Real Estate Attorneys (ACREL), Fellow
  • Construction Lawyers Society of America, Fellow
  • American Bar Association, Member
  • Minnesota State Bar Association, Member
  • Hennepin County Bar Association, Member
  • International Council of Shopping Centers, Member
  • NAIOP (formerly the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties), Member
  • Urban Land Institute, Member

Charitable & Civic Involvement

  • Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Adjunct Professor
  • Edina Football Association, Football Coach

Accolades

  • Chambers USA, Business, Real Estate, Minnesota, 2015-2026
  • Best Lawyers in America®, 2019-2026
  • Minnesota Lawyer, Legal 250, 2026
  • Minnesota Super Lawyers®, 2016-2026
  • Minnesota Monthly, "Top Lawyers in Minnesota," 2024-2026
  • Fellow in American College of Real Estate Lawyers, 2020-2024
  • Fellow in Construction Lawyers Society of America, 2018-2020
  • MSBA, North Star Lawyer, 2017-2019
  • Minnesota Super Lawyers®, Rising Star, 2002-2003

Insights

Client Alert

Dorsey Infrastructure Alert No. 1

August 23, 2021

Introduction This is the first of several Alerts that will address the two pending infrastructure bills currently being considered by Congress. While there remain several procedural steps for either initiative to become law, we believe there is now significant momentum that warrants close attention due to the potentially broad economic impacts. Accordingly, this series of Alerts will focus on the opportunities and disadvantages created by these twin legislative efforts for our clients’ business plans and on-going operations. While the traditional notion of infrastructure suggests major construction projects across our nation, the possibility of spending approximately $4.5 trillion over the next several years has created the so-called “Christmas Tree” effect for legislators to hang a wide variety of provisions into the legislative initiatives that are hidden in an estimated 5000 pages of statutory language. Moreover, the Biden Administration has expanded the notion of infrastructure to include “human” infrastructure—meaning the creation of expanded social programs that may rival the New Deal programs adopted by the Roosevelt Administration. Finally, many facets of the proposals involve a modernizing of infrastructure to be more responsive to challenges of climate change and demographic shifts, including rural areas. Altogether, the spending could result in significant programmatic changes that businesses will need to prepare for and react to going forward. By agreement on a bi-partisan basis in the Senate, most social programs will be included in a second bill being drafted by the Senate Democrats—which is subject to the Senate’s reconciliation budgetary rules that permit adoption by a majority of Senators and avoiding the filibuster cloture requirement of 60 votes. Accordingly, what follows is: (a) an initial summary of the new construction and related programs included in the first infrastructure bill that was adopted by the Senate on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 (titled the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” and referred to herein as “Infrastructure-1”); (b) a description of the arcane procedural steps that are taking place under the reconciliation rules of the Senate; and (c) a discussion of the tasks before the Senate as it drafts the wide-ranging social infrastructure provisions of the second infrastructure bill (“Infrastructure-2”). Discussion Infrastructure-1 As passed by the Senate, Infrastructure-1 is comprised of 10 “Divisions,” each of which are subdivided into numerous “titles” that address (in a somewhat loosely related fashion) topics and authorizations that fall under the divisional headings. The Divisions are as follows: Division A—Surface Transportation Division B—Surface Transportation Investment Division C—Public Transportation Division D—Energy Division E—Water Division F—Broadband and Internet Division G—Miscellaneous Authorizations Division H—Revenue and Taxation Division I—Other Matters Division J—Appropriations Although touted as a $1 trillion spending bill, total new spending by Infrastructure-1 is $550 billion of new appropriations. To pay for the increased spending and avoid increasing the federal deficit, $210 billion of unused COVID-19 funds will be applied. In a compromise between Senate Republicans and Democrats, minimal increased taxes were agreed upon, but some increased revenues were included, such as sales of broadband spectrum sales, increased fees and similar revenue-generating sources.1 In regard to new construction projects, the allocation for projects divided into industry segments is as follows: Roads and Bridges—$110 billion Passenger and Freight Rail—$66 billion Power Infrastructure—$65 billion Broadband—$65 billion Clean Drinking Water—$55 billion Public Transit—$39 billion Airports, Ports and Waterways—$42 Billion Environmental Cleanup—$21 billion Highway and Pedestrian Safety—$11 billion Resilience Western Water Infrastructure—$50 billion Electric Vehicle Infrastructure—$7.5 billion Electric School buses—$7.5 billion Reconnecting Communities—$1 billion2 It should be noted that it will be impossible to commence actual construction for the vast number of projects contemplated by Infrastructure-1 by the end of 2021 (much less 2022). That is because federal and state governmental entities will first be required to create project plans, complete environmental assessments, engage in competitive contracting and similar project management functions. Further, both federal and state regulatory agencies (particularly the Department of Transportation) must commence significant rulemaking to create a wide array of oversight functions. Importantly, many of the programs in Infrastructure-1 will be new programs that are opened to states, communities and non-profit organizations. We expect that the newness of the programs and their extensive reach into states and communities will cause them to be relevant to businesses at all levels. While nothing is ever final in legislation, the sensitivity of the agreement by Republicans to vote in favor of Infrastructure-1 likely means that few modifications will be made to this bill as it moves over to the House for consideration. Infrastructure-2 and the Reconciliation Process In order to appreciate how Infrastructure-2 eventually may be adopted—along with its proposed $3.4 billion price tag—it is useful to understand how the reconciliation process works in the Senate, which permits a budget bill for certain programs to be adopted by a majority of the Senate (because the filibuster rules do not apply to reconciliation legislation). The purpose of the reconciliation process—which was somewhat grudgingly agreed to by then President Nixon3 -- allows Congress to use an expedited procedure when considering legislation that would bring existing spending, revenue, and debt limit laws into compliance with changing fiscal and policy priorities established in the annual Congressional budget. Stated another way, for stated fiscal and policy goals to be achieved, Congress is authorized to alter current revenue, direct spending, or debt limit laws (and to reconcile existing law with its current priorities).4 Budget reconciliation is an optional, expedited legislative process that consists of several different stages, which begins with the adoption of a comprehensive budget resolution, which also must include reconciliation “directives” to affected Senate committees. These directives trigger the second stage of the process by instructing individual committees to develop and report legislation that would change laws within their respective jurisdictions related to modified direct spending, revenue or debt limits. Once a specified committee develops legislation, the reconciliation directive may further direct it to report the legislation for consideration in their respective chamber or submit it to the Budget Committee to be included in an omnibus reconciliation measure.5 On August 11, 2021, the Senate followed these reconciliation rules by adopting a budget resolution (the “Resolution”) drafted by the Senate Budget Committee (chaired by Senator Sanders). The Resolution takes two steps in increasing federal spending and programs: First, it significantly increases federal appropriations; second, instructs specified Senate committees to draft implementing legislation that includes levels of spending included in the Resolution. Two matters should be noted. First, reconciliation limits the inclusion and amendment of laws that are direct obligations of the federal government, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and military and federal civilian pensions. While the determination whether a specific statute is germane and can be included in reconciliation is the province of the House and Senate Parliamentarians, the desire by Democrats to create and/or increase entitlement (i.e., social welfare) programs would arguably allow many of new programs and entitlements to be included in a reconciliation bill strongly being advocated for by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. As noted above, the Resolution directs the following Senate committees to draft legislation to address the new spending authorizations: Committee On Agriculture, Nutrition, And Forestry Committee On Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Committee On Commerce, Science, And Transportation Committee On Energy And Natural Resources Committee On Environment And Public Works Committee On Finance Committee On Health, Education, Labor, And Pensions Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs Committee On Indian Affairs Committee On The Judiciary Committee On Small Business And Entrepreneurship Committee On Veterans’ Affairs Second, reconciliation contemplates what is termed in the Senate to be “normal order,” which means that the designated Senate committees referenced above must draft required legislation. In that regard, the scope of $4.3 billion in new benefits, entitlements and programs by the federal government is so remarkably broad, that significant lobbying by all constituencies directed toward the responsible Senate committees has already begun. Whether or not the end product for a draft Infrastructure-2 bill will satisfy the Senate’s 50% plus 1 requirement to adopt a reconciliation bill will not be determined until later this year or early in 2022.7 Though beyond the scope of this Alert, Senator Sanders expanded upon the instructions provided in the Resolution by identifying numerous legislative initiatives and programs to be undertaken by the above-referenced committees, including: Expanded Child Care Tax Credits Universal Pre-Kindergarten Universal Paid Family and Medical Leave Medicare Negotiation Authority for Prescription Drugs Expanded Medicare Coverage Expanded Affordable Housing Climate Change Renewable Energy Immigration Reform Future Infrastructure Alerts Because of the impact that literally hundreds of statutory provisions—currently in Infrastructure-1 and soon to be drafted Infrastructure-2 will have across the entire economy—Dorsey will be closely monitoring each bill and providing analysis to our clients regarding our views regarding both opportunities and possible detrimental effects those bills, if enacted, will have over the next decade in regard to governmental expenditures and expanded social obligations. As the impact of these two bills emerge and are analyzed, Dorsey has organized a team of attorneys available to assist our clients and friends with current analysis and advice for planning and determining appropriate business responses. 1 Despite bi-partisan statements that the deficit will not be increased, the Congressional Budget Office scored Infrastructure-1 as increasing the federal deficit by $256 billion during the 2012-2031 time period. 2 UPDATED FACT SHEET: Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act | The White House. 3 Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as amended (P.L. 93-344). 4 Since its first use in 1980, these expedited procedures have been used to pass 25 reconciliation bills. 5 Reported reconciliation legislation may be considered under expedited procedures in both the House and Senate, but the significant factor that affects the Senate is that a reconciliation bill only requires a majority of Senators to adopt the same (the House does not have a comparable super-majority requirement to pass legislation).  If there are differences between a House and Senate version of a reconciliation bill, a conference committee must meet to resolve any differences before the combined bills can be sent for approval by the President. 6 HEN21B67 (senate.gov). 7 MEMORANDUM for Democratic Senators - FY2022 Budget Resolution.pdf (senate.gov).  

Client Alert

Can I please go to work yet?

November 12, 2020

Working from home. When it started back in March, it was a novel experience. Dry cleaning bills went to zero, we could reallocate commuting time to catching up on Netflix, and we knew we’d be home for family dinner. Fast-forward to November. The novelty has worn off. Putting on clothes that require dry cleaning is a rare treat. The Netflix queue is long exhausted. And while family meals are indeed important, having breakfast, lunch, and dinner with the whole family every day for eight months might qualify as too much of a good thing. So can you go back to the office yet? And can you bring back to the office your employees who have been working from home? In Minnesota, the short answer is likely “no”, but both questions require a fact-specific analysis. For a longer answer, read on. Current restrictions: Current Minnesota law requires that “Any worker who can work from home must do so.” See Minnesota Emergency Executive Order 20-74, June 5, 2020, paragraph 7(a), as affirmed by Minnesota Emergency Executive Order 20-96, November 10, 2020, paragraph 1 (collectively, the “Order”). The Order’s requirement applies to employees in any industry, regardless of whether the state has designated that industry as “critical.” (For context: critical industries include healthcare and public health, food and agriculture, energy, transportation, critical manufacturing, and financial services, among others.) Regarding the requirement, “Any worker who can work from home must do so,” Minnesota has not defined the word “can” or set forth any written guidance on how to interpret the word “can.” Rather, in the state’s view, if a worker is able to perform his/her job functions at all, even less productively than usual, then the employee “can” work from home and therefore must do so. The following facts have proven relevant to state authorities: (1) whether an employee has a broadband internet connection at home (lack of broadband could support a finding that the employee cannot work from home); (2) whether data security is particularly important for the person’s job (so, a person who has to have Social Security Numbers up on their screen arguably cannot work at home); and (3) whether an employee has been working at home since the state first issued work-from-home orders in March. Regarding that last item: if an employee has been working at home since March, the state concludes the person “can” work from home, and therefore is skeptical of any effort to return to work now. In contrast, the following facts are not relevant to the state’s determination of whether an employer has violated the Order: (1) whether employees have a strong preference for returning to work; (2) whether executive leadership thinks the Order is warranted; and (3) whether the employer can keep employees socially distanced once they’re in the workplace. (COVID safety in the workplace becomes relevant only if an employee cannot perform job functions from home and therefore may return to the office.) Stiff penalties for non-compliance: The Order sets out stiff penalties for non-compliance. An individual who willfully violates the Order is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine of up to $1,000 and jail time of up to 90 days. See Order 20-96, paragraph 8. The penalties are even more strict for the leaders of a business: “Any business owner, manager, or supervisor who requires or encourages any of their employees, contractors, vendors, volunteers, or interns to violate this Executive Order” is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and faces a fine of up to $3,000 and jail time of up to 1 year. Id. The Minnesota Attorney General, city attorneys, and county attorneys may seek civil relief, including injunctions of actual or threatened violations of the Order, costs of investigation, and penalties of “up to $25,000 per occurrence.” Id. Governor Walz’s November 10 Executive Order added the ability to recoup the costs of investigations to the existing powers provided under previous orders. Real risk of enforcement: The practical risk of enforcement is real. Employees and their significant others have been contacting the State of Minnesota to note perceived violations of the applicable Executive Orders, often out of concern that an employer’s actions may be exposing them to COVID-19. Specifically, Minnesotans have been lodging complaints with the state’s “Work From Home Violation Helpline” and the Dept. of Labor & Industry (which includes Minnesota OSHA), among other entities. The state—via the entity that received the complaint in the first place or via the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension—then inquires with the employer and demands an accounting for why employees are back in the office. Looking to the future: We are in uncharted waters, but it doesn’t appear that Minnesota authorities will relax restrictions any time soon. The legal basis for the work-from-home requirement is Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s underlying declaration of a state of emergency. Gov. Walz has been renewing that declaration of state of emergency every month. Despite pressure from Minnesota Senate Republicans to cease renewing the state of emergency, all indications are that Gov. Walz will continue to renew it until COVID stops spreading on its own (an unlikely scenario) or because the health care system develops and deploys a vaccine (more likely). The Walz Administration has said that it will modify the work-from-home and related COVID restrictions based upon various public-health indicators in Minnesota, primarily the following: (1) the percentage of COVID-19 tests that come back positive; (2) daily new cases per 100,000 residents; (3) weekly COVID-19 tests per 10,000 residents; (4) weekly new hospital admissions per 100,000 residents; and (5) percentage of cases contracted due to community spread as opposed to a known source of exposure. Unfortunately, as of November 11, almost every one of those indicators is pointed in the wrong direction, as you can see at the Minnesota Department of Health dashboard available at this link. Therefore, all evidence suggests that the state government will be maintaining the current restrictions for the foreseeable future. The state has not specified what changes in those indicators would correspond to additional or fewer restrictions on office work. What should I do? To manage risk of non-compliance with the Order, you should take four steps: (1) Ensure that no one at your company is requiring or encouraging any worker to work in the office if that worker could perform his/her job functions remotely.  (2) Ensure that workers who can perform their job functions remotely are doing so.  (3) If you have any employees present in any facility for any reason, ensure your business has developed and implemented a COVID-19 Preparedness Plan, as required by Minnesota law for employers in both critical and non-critical industries.  (4) If you receive an inquiry from any enforcement authority, consult counsel before responding. Dorsey & Whitney attorneys have been guiding companies through the full range of COVID-19-related regulations since the pandemic began—including addressing inquiries from authorities and drafting Preparedness Plans—and stand ready to assist you.  

Firm Highlights

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

News

Dorsey & Whitney Partner Michael W. Droke Releases Fourth Edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide with Enhanced Insights for Today's Cooperatives

Industry-leading reference updated with practical tips and current cooperative law developments Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, authored by Dorsey Partner Michael W. Droke. Drawing on more than 20 years of direct experience as outside general counsel to major agricultural and food industry cooperatives, Droke has updated this essential resource with new practical tips, real-world guidance, and insights into emerging cooperative law issues that matter to cooperative leaders and their advisors. Since its initial publication, this comprehensive guide has become the standard reference for attorneys, executives, and cooperative governance professionals navigating the unique legal landscape of cooperative organizations. The new fourth edition builds on that foundation by incorporating practical lessons learned from recent cooperative transactions, governance challenges, and regulatory developments. "I am grateful for Dorsey's continued support of this work and for the opportunity to contribute to the cooperative community," said Droke. "Over the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of serving as outside general counsel to some of the nation's most successful cooperatives. The practical insights gained from that work inform every page of this edition. I wanted to create a resource that helps cooperative leaders and their legal advisors tackle real business challenges with confidence." The Fourth Edition features: Practical tips and real-world case examples drawn from decades of cooperative practice Guidance on cooperative formation, governance, member rights, and voting structures Current analysis of antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act issues affecting modern cooperatives Insights into financing, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate restructuring for cooperatives Member relations strategies and dispute resolution approaches specific to cooperative structures About Michael W. Droke Michael W. Droke is a Partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Firmwide Co-Chair of the Food, Beverage & Agriculture practice group. He serves as outside primary counsel for numerous cooperatives, providing comprehensive legal guidance on all aspects of cooperative operations, governance, member relations, corporate restructuring, financing, and mergers and acquisitions. His representative clients include National Co+op Grocers, Darigold, the Northwest Dairy Association, Organic Family Farms Cooperative, Chelan Fruit Cooperative, and Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. A former business executive who brings a dual perspective to his practice, Droke combines legal expertise with practical business acumen. He has served as an outside board member and general counsel for major cooperatives and maintains deep involvement in the cooperative community through regular presentations and participation in industry organizations including NCBA CLUSA, the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. About Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law Practice Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law practice group is a recognized national leader in cooperative law with more than 45 years of experience serving agricultural cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and cooperative start-ups across the nation. The practice includes 20 dedicated lawyers who advise cooperatives and other agriculture-related organizations on formation and organization, voting rights and governance, antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act compliance, tax issues, project development and finance, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, labor and employment, environmental compliance, and all other aspects of cooperative business operations. Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, Fourth Edition, is available from major book retailers and online booksellers.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?