- within Environment topic(s)
- in United States
- within Finance and Banking, Tax, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
With an office in Boston, Beveridge & Diamond (B&D) closely tracks developments, upcoming deadlines, and business implications for companies with operations in Massachusetts and the greater New England region. This article summarizes key areas of activity across New England states and what companies need to know for the remainder of 2025 and beyond.
This article focuses exclusively on state initiatives and trends, where we break down the following topics for environmental lawyers and sustainability professionals.
Air
New England states have been actively enacting new legislation and amending existing regulations to better address air pollution concerns; however, recent federal actions and executive orders (EOs) could impact state actions on air pollution, particularly those targeting climate change (see the Climate Change section below for more details).
Mobile Source Regulations
From 2023 to 2025, New England states, such as
Vermont and Massachusetts,
amended their vehicle emissions regulations to incorporate the
latest California emission standards, including the Heavy Omnibus
rules, which establish emission standards for heavy-duty engines
used in certain vehicles. In the fall of 2023, Connecticut
considered these same standards but did not adopt them. Such regulations would
impact vehicles sold in the state but grant an exemption to transit
buses.
Air Pollution Permitting
In March 2024, Massachusetts became the first
state to require a cumulative impact analysis for
facilities seeking air pollution permits in or near environmental
justice communities. This final amendment to Massachusetts' Air
Pollution Control regulations requires facilities requesting air
permits to evaluate local environmental and health conditions in
the community, while also improving public outreach throughout
their permitting process. Importantly, the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) will be able to deny permits
if the cumulative risk analysis reveals cancer and non-cancer risks
exceed specified thresholds. Massachusetts' new regulations
reveal a growing trend to incorporate cumulative impact analyses in
environmental decision-making (see also Massachusetts' new
requirement for cumulative impact reports from renewable energy
projects, in the Climate Change section).
Reporting Requirements
In 2024, Massachusetts proposed amendments to its
Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, which would include reporting
requirements for heating fuel suppliers and fuel storage
facilities, as well as an amendment to regulations addressing
CO2 emissions from electricity-generating facilities,
including natural gas. The Commonwealth is evaluating comments and
working on a final version. Meanwhile, Maine is considering a bill
that would require oil terminal facilities to notify nearby
communities during oil transfer activities, aiming to minimize
individuals' exposure to potential air pollution.
Climate Change
In light of potential Trump administration rollbacks—such as anticipated changes to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) as well as the Endangerment Finding—New England states may be increasing efforts to regulate on the climate front.
Massachusetts
At the end of 2024, Massachusetts enacted climate-focused legislation aimed at promoting clean energy by simplifying the permitting process for solar farms, wind farms, and energy infrastructure (discussed in a prior alert). The new climate law will expedite and simplify permitting: it creates one master permit and sets strict deadlines for the review process (12 months for municipalities and 15 months for the Energy Facilities Siting Board). The new legislation also requires renewable energy projects to produce a cumulative impact report, similar to Massachusetts' 2024 regulations, which require facilities requesting air permits in or near environmental justice communities to produce a cumulative impact analysis (see Air section).
Maine
Meanwhile, Maine recently directed millions of dollars to assist its communities in addressing climate change events, such as extreme storms. Its new legislation will grant homeowners access to a fund to help protect against severe weather damage while supporting infrastructure rebuilding and updates for early warning systems, which could help facilities and utilities affected by severe weather.
Rhode Island
As of April 2025, Rhode Island also proposed new environmental legislation that would add a green amendment to its state Constitution, such that Rhode Islanders have a "right to clean air, clean water, healthy and uncontaminated soil, a life-supporting climate, and the preservation of the environment's natural, scenic, and recreational values." The green amendment passed through the RI state senate on June 3, 2025. To be adopted, it still needs approval from the state house, and from a majority of state voters. Such green amendments, which currently exist in other states like Massachusetts, Montana, Pennsylvania, and New York, form a strong basis for standing in federal court both for the state and its individual citizens, and could likely lead to increased environmental litigation against perceived polluting entities. Other New England states have also previously proposed or are reviewing similar green amendments, including Vermont, Connecticut, and Delaware.
There is further potential for other states to bolster their climate reporting and regulatory requirements, especially if the federal government relaxes its own requirements. Yet, all New England states, not just those relying on federal statutory authority, such as the Clean Air Act, may be impacted by new Trump administration EOs. For instance, the EO issued on April 8, 2025, directs the U.S. Attorney General to identify state-led initiatives addressing climate change and greenhouse gases that "are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable." Such efforts by the Trump administration could potentially undercut state laws addressing climate change and lead to increased litigation under constitutional or preemption challenges.
Water
This section provides a base-level overview of current affairs concerning stormwater, flooding, and safe drinking water throughout New England.
Stormwater
Across New England and at the federal level, regulators are steadily expanding and tightening stormwater management requirements, signaling increased costs, compliance obligations, and permitting oversight for property owners and industrial operators. From local utility charges to state-level permit updates and nationwide EPA proposals, these initiatives reflect a broader trend of using stormwater regulation as a tool to address water quality and infrastructure resilience.
In 2024, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) joined ten other Massachusetts communities in charging property owners with more than 400 square feet of impervious material an additional monthly charge, which communities will then use to fund stormwater infrastructure projects. The charge applies to any property with large areas of impervious material, including roofs and pavement. BWSC charges residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Notably, there is no limitation on who it may charge, which can include non-profit organizations, federal and state-owned properties, as well as the aforementioned commercial, industrial, and residential properties. BWSC also offers grants and credits to help reduce a property's runoff. Companies should understand the potential costs associated with their properties and continue to stay up to date with BWSC grants and credits.
On October 1, Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued a new NPDES General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (Industrial Permit). The new Industrial Permit takes effect on November 1, 2025 and permits facilities to maintain coverage on an interim basis so long as a renewal application is timely submitted. The Industrial Permit has previously gone through two comment periods, the most recent of which concluded in April 2024 and DEEP's response to comments was published with the Industrial Permit. Facilities should familiarize themselves with the changes to the Industrial Permit and ensure they comply with any accompanying DEEP deadlines.
In 2024, EPA proposed the 2026 update to the NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), which regulates stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities. The proposed changes in the 2026 update include modifying the considerations of stormwater control measure enhancements for major storms and adding specific language regarding water quality-based effluent limitations, additional implementation measures, and monitoring requirements. EPA also reopened the comment period on the 2024 Preliminary Designation and draft General Permit for CII properties in January 2025. The Preliminary Designation and draft General Permit, if implemented, would require numerous previously unregulated properties to secure coverage and authorization to discharge stormwater.
Although the comment period has ended for both proposals, companies should continue to monitor EPA's responses to the comments received and any additional changes made to them.
Continued Focus on Climate Change Adaptation
New England states continue to focus on climate change adaptation—including fortifying infrastructure in response to threats of increased flooding and future severe storms. For instance, last year, Maine Governor Janet Mills established the state's Infrastructure Rebuilding and Resilience Commission to review and evaluate Maine's response to previous severe storms, identify areas in crucial need of near-term investment and policy updates, and develop Maine's first long-term infrastructure plan. The Commission's Final Report: A Plan for Infrastructure Resilience was published in May 2025. The Report has three overarching goals that seek to strengthen infrastructure and reduce disaster risk, sustain Maine's forward momentum in upgrading its infrastructure investments, and improve the State's disaster preparedness, response, and rebuilding capabilities.
Along the same lines, in 2021, the state allocated $20 million in funding to the Maine Infrastructure Adaptation Fund, which provides one-time funding to local governments to adapt their stormwater, drinking water, and wastewater infrastructure in response to future flooding, severe weather concerns, and rising sea levels. Municipalities should continue to monitor the progression of the Commission's work and application opportunities for funding from the Maine Infrastructure Adaptation Plan for its infrastructure adaptation, repair, and improvement projects.
EPA Region 1, which supervises all New England states, is also focusing on climate change adaptation in New England. In 2023, the agency imposed additional climate change adaptation requirements to a handful of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The permits required the permittees to develop adaptation plans to mitigate the risks associated with wastewater treatment plants and sewers during severe storm events and flooding. Businesses should continue monitoring the publicly available NPDES permits for additional or similar requirements. Whether Region 1 will continue with these efforts in light of the administration change remains to be seen.
PFAS Drinking Water Standards
In May 2025, EPA loosened its drinking water regulations for all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals, except for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), New England regulators continue to enforce their own standards. Drinking water utilities now have two additional years—until 2031—to meet the compliance deadline for maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). However, all New England states have implemented their own individual standards—each placing strict limits on the concentration of PFAS, PFOS, PFOA, and other substances in public water.
These MCLs require public water suppliers to meet state-level standards. Concerns remain about how far states will go to address potential gaps in federal drinking water protections. Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island limit state drinking water levels to 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for the combined sum of six PFAS, including: PFOA, PFOS, PFHpA, PFNA, PFDA, and PFHxS. Similarly, Vermont has a combined MCL of 20 ppt for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA. While New Hampshireestablished MCLs of 12 ppt for PFOA, 15 ppt for PFOS, and 11 ppt for PFNA, Connecticut established "action levels" for PFOS and PFOA of 10 and 16 parts per trillion.
Due to the constantly evolving nature of MCLs, companies should continue to stay informed on both federal and state compliance requirements.
Stay abreast of the constantly evolving PFAS regulatory landscape at the state and federal level nationwide with B&D's PFAS Tracker.
PFAS
As federal environmental policy shifts toward deregulation, states across New England are considering how to respond. This could significantly change the landscape when it comes to the regulation of emerging chemicals.
On March 12, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the Agency would undertake efforts to roll back 31 environmental regulations that span multiple industry sectors. This rollback includes repealing or revising key air quality rules such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and multiple National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Also targeted are MCLs, such as four of the six PFAS compounds previously regulated (PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA), and PFBS). These changes are part of a broader EPA strategy, which it claims will balance environmental protection with regulatory flexibility, especially for certain industries and rural communities.
New England states' response to the federal government's rollbacks is still evolving. For example, Maine has a new bill pending that would require the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to adopt one of the most stringent standards for PFAS in drinking water. Some other New England states already have implemented PFAS MCLs. These states will need to assess whether they will implement changes to mirror those made at the federal level.
Many New England states continue to target PFAS in recent legislation, extending beyond drinking water standards. Maine, the first state to enact a broad PFAS ban, recently adopted a rule to implement the law, which, among other things, includes a phased sales prohibition for products containing intentionally added PFAS. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire passed laws with more limited restrictions on PFAS in products. Outside of traditional products regulation, states are also passing laws prohibiting the use or sale of any biosolids or wastewater sludge containing PFAS. Currently, the growing list of states includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Those interested in PFAS issues should continue to watch for further announcements at both the state and federal levels, as new regulatory proposals and other opportunities to engage with EPA and state-level equivalents are likely to arise.
In addition to PFAS, state legislatures continue to target other persistent substances. Connecticut's legislature, for example, aims to set maximum allowable concentrations for 1,4-dioxane in certain household and personal care products. This trails other New England states, such as Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island, which have established similar bans on 1,4-dioxane in various consumer products within the last five years.
Looking more broadly, Massachusetts' MA H1020 would encourage proactive regulation of emerging contaminants, rather than waiting for federal regulation, by empowering MassDEP to set enforceable limits on contaminants identified during the newly created Science Advisory Board's review of unregulated contaminants. Whether other New England states will adopt similar laws is still unknown; however, this proactive approach could result in states identifying and regulating emerging contaminants more quickly.
Although PFAS remains a primary focus, states are continuing to address other emerging contaminants. Manufacturers and other interested parties should continue to monitor the emerging patchwork of requirements at the state level to avoid business and supply chain disruptions as well as potential non-compliance.
Product Stewardship
State legislatures across the U.S. have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, aiming to shift the financial responsibility of managing a product's life cycle from taxpayers to corporate producers. In New England, following Maine's leadership, two states have recently introduced or passed their own EPR legislation.
Massachusetts
As discussed in an earlier news alert, Massachusetts passed EPR legislation in November 2024, establishing a special legislative EPR Commission. The Commission is in charge of making EPR policy recommendations to the Commonwealth's legislature by January 15, 2026. However, following its April 14 kick-off meeting, the Commission recommended the passage of EPR legislation for paint in a June 30 letter. Despite some political pressure, Massachusetts has yet to join the nationwide trend, led so far by six states, to formally enact packaging EPR legislation. On May 21, 2025, the Commission established two advisory groups to separately address and gather more information on (1) electronics and (2) plastics and packaging from existing EPR programs. The Commission will hold its next meeting on October 29 to discuss plastics and packaging.
Rhode Island
In April 2025, a legislator introduced legislation (H 6207) to establish a bottle deposit return system (DRS) and an EPR program for packaging and paper. The bill was the result of Rhode Island's special legislative commission, which recently published a report of recommendations after spending the last two years studying recycling practices throughout the Ocean State in light of litter problems and reduced landfill capacity. The legislature quickly brought the bill to the floor for a vote, but ultimately sent it to study. In June 2025, a new EPR "study bill" (H 6207 Substitute A As Amended) was introduced and signed by the governor, which enables a third party to conduct a needs assessment focused on local infrastructure, disposal costs, supply chains, end-markets, and more. The study will also examine the efficacy of the combined DRS and EPR program as proposed in the original bill.
Maine
Maine was the first state to adopt EPR legislation in 2021. After several years of stakeholder meetings, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection finally adopted program rules at the end of 2024. Now, the state has one more year to select a Stewardship Organization, such as Circular Action Alliance (which intends to submit a proposal to the state), to run the program before the EPR program officially launches. Producers participating in the program must register with the state beginning in May 2026 and start paying fees in July 2026 to help fund the EPR program during its start-up period. The whole program is expected to become fully operational in 2027. Find additional information about Maine's anticipated timelines for program implementation on its website.
Connecticut
There has not been any recent movement on EPR legislation in Connecticut. You can find information on Connecticut's existing EPR programs on the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection website.
New Hampshire
EPR legislation was previously introduced before the New Hampshire legislature in 2023. Since then, New Hampshire's Solid Waste Working Group has been researching other states' EPR laws. In 2024, the Group recommended that the state pursue EPR legislation for paint recycling and left the possibility of recommending a battery EPR bill open for the future.
Food Waste
New England continues to lead the nation in enacting and implementing food waste bans and similar laws governing organics disposal. Massachusetts' ban, for example, has been hailed as one of the most effective in diverting food waste from landfills, in addition to being one of the first in the nation. With legislation recently adopted, Maine stands to be the final New England state to enact a food waste ban, following closely on the heels of New Hampshire, which enacted its ban in February 2025.
These bans prohibit entities that generate a substantial amount of food waste from disposing of that waste in landfills or via incineration. Depending on the state, affected entities may include facilities like restaurants, educational and residential institutions, and food processors that generate between 0.5 and 2 tons of food waste per week. Food waste bans require such entities to dispose of their food waste in alternative ways, including donation, reuse (including consumption by animals), composting, or anaerobic digestion. Entities that do not wish to manage their food waste on-site may opt to contract with a commercial hauler to transport it to a regional composting or other capable facility. Several bans exempt entities that do not have an authorized organics recycling facility within a certain distance. Connecticut and New Hampshire, for example, condition compliance on the presence of such a facility within 20 miles of the food waste generator, while in Rhode Island, the threshold is 15 miles.
At the moment, only Vermont's food waste ban applies to entities that generate less than 0.5 tons of food waste per week. However, several states have lowered the threshold for compliance over time. Entities that generate a significant amount of food waste but currently fall under this threshold should be aware of this trend and continue to monitor any proposed amendments to their state's ban. Vermont is the only state with a universal ban that applies across households, institutions, and businesses of any size.
Enforcement varies, but states typically issue a notice of non-compliance ordering the responsible entity to correct any violation. Several states also have the ability to assess a penalty ranging from hundreds to up to $25,000 per offense (in the case of Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §22a-226)
Connecticut
Connecticut's Commercial Organic Recycling Law, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §22a-226e, took effect in 2014. It originally applied to businesses and institutions generating an average of 2 tons of food waste per week, but subsequent legislative updates to the threshold adjusted the current application, which now covers businesses and institutions generating an average of one-half ton per week as of 2022. The regulation also only applies to businesses and institutions located within 20 miles of a permitted source-separated organic material composting facility.
Starting in January 2026, the ban will extend to K-12 schools that meet the other criteria. As of March 1, 2025, regulated entities must submit summaries of the amount of food donated and recycled each year, as well as which contractors handle their food waste collection and recycling.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire's food waste ban, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 149-M:27, Part V, went into effect on February 1, 2025, and it applies to businesses and institutions that generate one ton of food waste each week, provided there is an alternative management facility within 20 miles with the capacity to accept such food waste.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts' food waste ban (310 Mass. Code Regs. 19.017) took effect in 2014 for businesses and institutions generating one ton of food waste per week. As of 2022, the State lowered the threshold that applies to businesses and institutions generating one-half ton or more of food waste each week. The total amount of food waste diverted from landfills and incinerators has nearly doubled between 2016 and 2022, from 190,000 tons to 360,000 tons per year. However, the Commonwealth has an ambitious goal of reducing food waste disposal by 780,000 tons per year by 2030, more than double the amount diverted in 2022.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island's ban on food waste took effect in January 2016 (R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 23-18.9-17). It originally applied to businesses and institutions generating two tons per week, with a composting facility located within 15 miles of their site. The State further reduced the threshold for the amount of food waste generated for educational facilities in 2018 and 2023, which now applies to educational entities generating at least one-half ton (0.57 tons) per week.
Vermont
Vermont has the most stringent food waste laws in New England (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 §6605k). Vermont's universal ban on the disposal of food scraps in landfills or incinerators took effect on July 1, 2020. Like the other New England states, Vermont initially set thresholds for the amount of waste generated, such that the food waste ban only applied to larger generators of food waste. However, as of July 1, 2020, the regulation applies to any person who generates any amount of food waste. The state also now requires commercial waste haulers to offer separate collections of food scraps to nonresidential customers and residential customers in apartment buildings with four or more units.
Maine
Maine was the last New England state to pass a food waste ban. On June 10, 2025, the legislature passed L.D. 1065, 132nd Maine Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2025). If signed into law, the ban would take effect on July 1, 2027. The ban would apply to businesses and institutions generating two tons or more of food waste each week and located within 20 miles of an organics recycler. As of 2029, the bill would lower the threshold for businesses and institutions generating one or more tons per week and within 25 miles of an organics recycler. Maine attempted similar legislation in 2024, but the bill did not pass.
Conclusion
As New England states continue to impose food waste bans and tighten their respective regulations and enforcement, covered entities need to understand their obligations and develop a strategy for compliance. Since, in several states, the applicability of food waste bans depends on proximity to an organics recycler, covered entities without another way to manage food waste should monitor the opening of new organics recycling facilities in their area. This also presents a potential opportunity for organics recyclers, as new facility locations may trigger the ban and provide them with new food waste feedstock at a time when other sources of organic material, like biosolids, may pose a higher contamination risk. However, food waste may present its own contamination issues, whether in the food itself, packaging, or other items making their way into the waste stream. In addition, given the trend of broader applicability of food waste bans over time, entities that currently do not generate enough food waste for their state's ban to apply should track any potential expansions of the ban.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
