September 11, 2025

D.C. Circuit Reinstates Clean Air Act Affirmative Defense for Emergency Exceedances

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Environmental Alert

(by Joseph Schaeffer, Gina Buchman and Ryan McCann)

On September 5, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) reinstated an affirmative defense under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for exceedances occurring as a result of an emergency, ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rescission of that defense was arbitrary and capricious. EPA had first established that affirmative defense for state-issued Title V permits in 1992, 57 Fed. Reg. 32250, 32306, and then expanded it to federally-issued Title V permits in 1996, 61 Fed. Reg. 34202, 34239. In doing so, it created a limited shield to liability for exceedances of emissions limitations if the operator could prove that the exceedance was due to “any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God ….” 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(g)(2). By 2016, however, EPA had concluded that the affirmative defense unlawfully encroached on the judiciary’s role to impose appropriate civil penalties for CAA violations or, alternatively, rendered applicable emissions limitations “non-continuous” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). EPA then rescinded the regulation affording the affirmative defense in 2023. 88 Fed. Reg. 47029, 47030–31

SSM Litigation Group (SSM), a coalition of interest groups representing Title V permit holders, petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review. After first disposing of EPA’s challenge to SSM’s standing, the Court turned to whether EPA’s elimination of the affirmative defense was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

EPA’s merits-based argument was two-pronged. The CAA allows any person to commence a civil action against another person or entity who is alleged to have violated an emission standard or limitation. …

September 3, 2025

Former U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Attorney Nicholas McDaniel Joins Law Firm Babst Calland’s Washington, D.C. Office

Washington, DC

Babst Calland announced that Nicholas McDaniel has joined the firm as a shareholder in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. With more than a decade of combined government and private practice experience, most recently as a senior enforcement attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, McDaniel will be a member of the firm’s Litigation, Environmental, and Energy and Natural Resources groups. He will counsel companies on environmental compliance, enforcement, and litigation challenges.

At Babst Calland, McDaniel will focus his practice on complex environmental and commercial litigation for clients in the energy, natural resources, and manufacturing sectors. His work will include enforcement defense, citizen suits, and disputes involving environmental contamination. He also brings significant experience navigating bankruptcy proceedings involving environmental claims and negotiating settlements with regulators and citizen groups.

During his tenure at DOJ, McDaniel led major federal enforcement actions and complex negotiations that resulted in landmark environmental settlements. Notably, he secured the largest-ever civil penalty under the Clean Air Act, and is a three-time recipient of the prestigious Assistant Attorney General’s Award for Excellence – first for litigating and settling a cost recovery action under the Oil Pollution Act related to the longest-running oil spill in U.S. history, then for securing CERCLA cost recovery and natural resource damages on behalf of the United States, and later for his record Clean Air Act settlement. He also received numerous other honors, including the 2024 Arthur S. Flemming Award for legal achievement and recognition from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for exceptional service.

Earlier in his career, he litigated energy and rate-making cases before the Public Utilities Commission and in state courts with the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“Nick is a highly skilled litigator with significant first-chair trial experience who has handled some of the toughest environmental enforcement cases in the country,” said Mark K. …

September 3, 2025

Key Environmental and Energy Policies in the Second Trump Administration

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Developing Pittsburgh

(by Ben Clapp and Gary Steinbauer)

Announced through a record-breaking number of executive orders, memoranda and directives, new White House energy and environmental policy initiatives are resulting in a rapidly changing environmental regulatory climate affecting the business community.

To help clients keep pace with these new policy initiatives, and recent steps that EPA has taken to implement this broad deregulatory agenda, attorneys at the law firm Babst Calland offer advice on how businesses can adapt and thrive in a swiftly changing regulatory environment.

It will be some time before we get a clear picture on “this administration’s policy objectives and how they’re all going to unfold,” Gary Steinbauer, a shareholder working with the environmental law practice of Babst Calland’s Pittsburgh office, says.

One of the emerging energy policy themes is the Trump administration’s goal of “American energy dominance,” achieved through permitting reform and environmental deregulation in the energy sector. Other themes include de-emphasizing climate change-based regulatory initiatives, promoting domestic manufacturing and mineral extraction, and grid reliability.

Executive orders 101

An executive order is a written statement in which a president broadcasts a directive to implement a policy change.

Presidents have fairly broad authority in terms of the scope of what they can order, “provided that that order is consistent with the applicable laws,” Ben Clapp, shareholder and chair of the environmental section at Babst Calland’s Washington, D.C. office, says.

A president cannot, through executive order, revise a regulation or amend or revoke a law.  However, a president can revoke a previous administration’s executive orders and use them to announce new policy initiatives. Sometimes, when undertaking specific activities that have been delegated to the executive branch by Congress or the Constitution, they can compel a specific, direct action through an executive order without further procedures. …

September 2, 2025

WVDEP Proposes Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification for New Corps of Engineers Expedited Permitting Mechanisms for Energy-Related Projects

Charleston, WV and Pittsburgh, PA

Environmental Alert

(by Kip Power and Mackenzie Moyer)

On August 21, 2025, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) published its proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification package with respect to two separate expedited permitting mechanisms recently proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The proposed 401 Certification would approve the use of the Corps’ proposed Regional General Permit (RGP) and Letter of Permission (LOP) for energy projects in West Virginia, each of which was published by the Corps on June 4, 2025. The Corps proposed the RGP and LOP to expedite permitting of energy related projects under Section 404 of the CWA and (as to the RGP) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), as a means of implementing several Executive Orders issued by President Trump aimed at expediting regulatory approval of such projects. In finalizing its decision on the proposed Certifications, the WVDEP will consider the impact of activities that would be authorized using these mechanisms on water resources, fish and wildlife, recreation, critical habitats, wetlands, and other natural resources. WVDEP is accepting public comment on its proposed Certification package until September 23, 2025.

Section 401 Water Quality Certifications are required for permits or licenses issued by federal agencies to ensure that such projects do not violate a state’s water quality standards or adversely affect designated uses of specific streams. Under applicable federal regulations and the terms of the Corps’ proposals, the WVDEP is required to act upon the Corps’ request for CWA Section 401 Certification of both the RGP and LOP within 60 days after they were received by the WVDEP, and a failure to meet that deadline would be deemed to be a waiver of the WVDEP’s certification authority. …

August 27, 2025

Grants Available Through Pennsylvania Grid Resilience Program Under Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matt Wood and Gina Buchman)

On May 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) announced the availability of $8 million in grants offered through the Pennsylvania Grid Resilience Grants Program (Program), which is funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. See 55 Pa. Bull. 3809 (May 31, 2025). The Program’s funding is available to entities that own or operate electric power systems, such as electric grid operators, electricity storage operators, electricity generators, transmission owners or operators, distribution providers, and fuel suppliers, who are looking to implement measures intended to mitigate the impact of electric grid disruptions.

PADEP is specifically interested in projects that promote clean energy generation and workforce benefits. A minimum of 5% of the program funding is being reserved for entities that sell less than 4 million MWh of electricity annually (the “Small Utility Set Aside”). On its website, PADEP has identified several eligible project types, including weatherization technologies and equipment, fire resistant technologies and fire prevention systems, the undergrounding of electrical equipment, and utility pole management. The following types of projects are ineligible for the Program: construction of a new electric generating facility, construction of a new large-scale battery storage facility, and projects relating to cybersecurity. See PADEP, “Pennsylvania Grid Resilience Grant Program,” here.

Concept paper submissions were due on August 8, 2025, and PADEP was to provide feedback on concept papers by email by August 22, 2025. …

August 27, 2025

Bucks County Appeals Dismissal of Climate Change Lawsuit

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matt Wood and Gina Buchman)

On June 16, 2025, Bucks County, Pennsylvania filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania challenging the court of common pleas’ dismissal of Bucks County’s climate change lawsuit against 14 energy companies and the industry’s largest trade association, the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The complaint alleged that the energy companies and the API should be held financially liable for climate change impacts. Specifically, Bucks County alleged that the defendants engaged in a decades-long disinformation campaign that was designed to discredit climate science, create doubt around the impact of burning fossil fuels, and delay the transition to a low carbon future. Bucks County also alleged that the campaign worsened emissions, accelerated global warming, and brought devastating climate impacts to the county. The lower court dismissed the complaint for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to federal preemption, concluding that our federal structure does not allow any state law to address the claims in the complaint. Bucks Cnty. v. BP P.L.C., No. 2024-01836 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pleas May 16, 2025).

Similar suits have been brought by cities and states around the country. Some courts have held that these cases properly belong in state court, but courts in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York have made rulings similar to the court of common pleas in the Bucks County case. The superior court received the original record on August 12, 2025, and will proceed from there.

Copyright © 2025, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado

August 27, 2025

PADEP Proposes OOOOc State Plan

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matt Wood and Gina Buchman)

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) released its Proposed State Plan for 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart OOOOc Emissions Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities (Proposed State Plan) for public comment on May 31, 2025. See 55 Pa. Bull. 3810 (May 31, 2025).

PADEP released its Proposed State Plan in response to the Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in spring 2024. 89 Fed. Reg. 16,820 (Mar. 8, 2024). This rule established New Source Performance Standards Subpart OOOOb that regulates emissions for new facilities in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. It also included Subpart OOOOc, establishing model emission guidelines to address emissions from existing sources in the same source category. When EPA publishes emissions guidelines as part of the New Source Performance Standard, PADEP is obligated under the federal Clean Air Act to propose a state plan that implements the federal model emission guidelines. States can choose to implement EPA’s model guidelines or develop regulatory provisions with standards that are as or more stringent than the federal provisions.

States may apply to EPA to implement less stringent standards than the model rule that take into account the remaining useful life and other factors (RULOF) of certain regulated facilities. RULOF demonstrations must show that a facility (or class thereof) cannot reasonably achieve the emission limitations in the model guidelines due to (1) unreasonable cost of control resulting from facility design, age, or location; …

August 25, 2025

Commonwealth Court Finds Objectors May Have Standing to Intervene in Appeals of Zoning Enforcement Notices

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Blaine Lucas and Anna Jewart)

In accordance with Section 909.1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), a municipal zoning hearing board (ZHB) possesses exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final adjudications over a number of land use matters.  Not only does a ZHB adjudicate applications for variances from, and special exceptions under, a zoning ordinance, it frequently operates in an appellate capacity as well.  Among other matters, Section 909.1(3) vests a ZHB with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals “from the determination of the zoning officer” including “the issuance of any cease and desist order,” 53 P.S. §10909.1(3).  In addition, the municipal zoning officer has the authority under Section 616.1 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10616.1, to initiate enforcement proceedings against a person perceived to be in violation of the local zoning ordinance through issuance of an “enforcement notice.”  Section 616.1(c)(5) requires that the “enforcement notice” include a statement of the right to appeal to the ZHB, and Section 616.1(d) articulates that in “any appeal of an enforcement notice to the zoning hearing board” the municipality shall have the responsibility of presenting its evidence first.

It is clear from a reading of both Sections 909.1 and 616.1 of the MPC that the ZHB has appellate jurisdiction over both an “enforcement notice” specifically, or any other “determination” of the zoning officer.  However, the procedures and practice involved in the ZHB’s appellate review in these matters can be nuanced, and issues of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the MPC remain unsettled. A frequent issue is one of objector standing; i.e. who, beyond the appellant or applicant, is permitted to participate in a given case before a ZHB.  In Heinzee, LLC v. …

August 21, 2025

Seven Babst Calland Attorneys Named as 2026 Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year”, 47 Selected for Inclusion in the The Best Lawyers in America®, and Four Named to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV, and Washington, DC

Babst Calland is pleased to announce that seven lawyers were selected as 2026 Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Charleston, W. Va. (by BL Rankings). Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant.

Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. Those named to the 2026 Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” include:

Joseph G. Bunn – Mining “Lawyer of the Year” in Charleston, W. Va.

Kevin J. Garber – Natural Resources “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Jennifer J. Hicks – Energy “Lawyer of the Year” in Charleston, W. Va.

Robert Max Junker – Municipal “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Jean M. Mosites – Environmental “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Mychal S. Schulz – Litigation – ERISA “Lawyer of the Year” in Charleston, W. Va.

Steven B. Silverman – Information Technology “Lawyer of the Year” in Pittsburgh, Pa.

View the award recipients here.

In addition, 47 Babst Calland lawyers were selected for inclusion in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®, the most respected peer-reviewed publications in the legal profession:

  • Chester R. Babst III – Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
  • Donald C. Bluedorn II – Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental, Water Law
  • Lisa Bruderly – Energy Law
  • Joseph G.

    • …

August 20, 2025

Key Environmental and Energy Policies in the Second Trump Administration

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Ben Clapp and Gary Steinbauer)

Announced through a record-breaking number of executive orders, memoranda and directives, new White House energy and environmental policy initiatives are resulting in a rapidly changing environmental regulatory climate affecting the business community.

To help clients keep pace with these new policy initiatives, and recent steps that EPA has taken to implement this broad deregulatory agenda, attorneys at the law firm Babst Calland offer advice on how businesses can adapt and thrive in a swiftly changing regulatory environment.

It will be some time before we get a clear picture on “this administration’s policy objectives and how they’re all going to unfold,” Gary Steinbauer, a shareholder working with the environmental law practice of Babst Calland’s Pittsburgh office, says.

One of the emerging energy policy themes is the Trump administration’s goal of “American energy dominance,” achieved through permitting reform and environmental deregulation in the energy sector. Other themes include de-emphasizing climate change-based regulatory initiatives, promoting domestic manufacturing and mineral extraction, and grid reliability.

Executive orders 101

An executive order is a written statement in which a president broadcasts a directive to implement a policy change.

Presidents have fairly broad authority in terms of the scope of what they can order, “provided that that order is consistent with the applicable laws,” Ben Clapp, shareholder and chair of the environmental section at Babst Calland’s Washington, D.C. office, says.

A president cannot, through executive order, revise a regulation or amend or revoke a law.  However, a president can revoke a previous administration’s executive orders and use them to announce new policy initiatives. Sometimes, when undertaking specific activities that have been delegated to the executive branch by Congress or the Constitution, they can compel a specific, direct action through an executive order without further procedures. …

August 15, 2025

Federal Office of Surface Mining Proposes to Restore Coal Mine Regulatory Oversight Rules

Charleston, WV

Environmental Alert

(Christopher (Kip) Power and Robert Stonestreet)

Recognizing the “diversity in terrain, climate, biologic, chemical and other physical conditions” among the States in which coal is mined, the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. (“SMCRA”) specifies that governmental responsibility for regulating the coal industry “should rest with the States.” SMCRA § 101(f). To accomplish that, SMCRA provides for delegation of primary regulatory authority (or “primacy”) to a State if its regulatory program meets national standards. 30 U.S.C. § 1253. Residual oversight authority is vested in the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (“OSM”), which was created to ensure that primacy states adequately maintain and enforce their approved State programs and to inspect and possibly intervene where problems are reported at specific mine sites that the State regulatory authority (“SRA”) has failed to address.

The rules governing the exercise of OSM’s oversight authority with respect to primacy States under SMCRA may soon change. On June 16, 2025, OSM published a proposal to revise those regulations, essentially seeking to restore them to the form that existed prior to promulgation by the Biden administration of its own changes to those rules, entitled “Ten-Day Notices and Corrective Action for State Regulatory Program Issues” (89 Fed. Reg. 24714, April 9, 2024) (the “2024 TDN Rule”). The comment period on the proposed changes to unwind the 2024 TDN Rule closed on July 16, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 25174 (June 16, 2025).

Under SMCRA, if OSM has reason to believe that there may be a violation of the approved State program at a particular mine site that has not been adequately addressed by the SRA, OSM is authorized to issue a ten-day notice (or “TDN”) to a SRA. …

August 8, 2025

EPA Extends Certain Compliance Deadlines for Oil and Natural Gas Clean Air Act Requirements

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Environmental Alert

(by Gary Steinbauer, Gina Buchman and Christina Puhnaty)

On July 31, 2025, EPA published in the Federal Register its highly anticipated Interim Final Rule to extend several deadlines in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc that were promulgated in EPA’s 2024 Methane Rule. 90 Fed. Reg. 35966 (July 31, 2025).  That same day, environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Interim Final Rule. Envtl. Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, Case #25-1164 (D.C. Cir.). Absent a stay by the court, which the environmental groups are currently not seeking, the Interim Final Rule and the various extended deadlines are effective.

Summary of Deadline Extensions

The Interim Final Rule extends numerous compliance deadlines for oil and gas air emission sources subject to the New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts OOOO, OOOOa, OOOOb and OOOOc.  The previous compliance deadlines were published in a March 2024 final rule.  89 Fed. Reg. 16820 (March 8, 2024).  The Interim Final Rule, which became effective upon publication, extends many deadlines in OOOOb, the date that the requirements of the Super-Emitter Program apply with respect to OOOO, OOOOa, and OOOOb, and the date by which states must submit plans to EPA pursuant to the OOOOc emissions guidelines.

EPA extended the following OOOOb compliance deadlines to at least January 22, 2027:

  • Process Controllers: The date by which process controller affected facilities are required to be zero-bleed devices. 40 CFR §§ 60.5370b(a)(5)(i), 60.5390b(a), 60.5415b(h)(1).
  • Storage Vessels:
    • The date by which receiving additional crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbons, or produced water throughput at tank batteries triggers a modification.

    • …

August 8, 2025

Key Environmental and Energy Policies in the Second Trump Administration

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Pittsburgh Business Times

(by Ben Clapp and Gary Steinbauer)

Announced through a record-breaking number of executive orders, memoranda and directives, new White House energy and environmental policy initiatives are resulting in a rapidly changing environmental regulatory climate affecting the business community.

To help clients keep pace with these new policy initiatives, and recent steps that EPA has taken to implement this broad deregulatory agenda, attorneys at the law firm Babst Calland offer advice on how businesses can adapt and thrive in a swiftly changing regulatory environment.

It will be some time before we get a clear picture on “this administration’s policy objectives and how they’re all going to unfold,” Gary Steinbauer, a shareholder working with the environmental law practice of Babst Calland’s Pittsburgh office, says.

One of the emerging energy policy themes is the Trump administration’s goal of “American energy dominance,” achieved through permitting reform and environmental deregulation in the energy sector. Other themes include de-emphasizing climate change-based regulatory initiatives, promoting domestic manufacturing and mineral extraction, and grid reliability.

Executive orders 101

An executive order is a written statement in which a president broadcasts a directive to implement a policy change.

Presidents have fairly broad authority in terms of the scope of what they can order, “provided that that order is consistent with the applicable laws,” Ben Clapp, shareholder and chair of the environmental section at Babst Calland’s Washington, D.C. office, says.

A president cannot, through executive order, revise a regulation or amend or revoke a law.  However, a president can revoke a previous administration’s executive orders and use them to announce new policy initiatives. Sometimes, when undertaking specific activities that have been delegated to the executive branch by Congress or the Constitution, they can compel a specific, direct action through an executive order without further procedures. …

August 1, 2025

Clearing the Air on Public Nuisance and Preemption: A Look at Climate-Change Litigation in Pa. and Beyond

Harrisburg, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle and Stefanie Pitcavage Mekilo)

According to the United Nations, climate change “is the defining issue of our time.”  https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change  (last visited July 28, 2025).  Yet views diverge over precisely what the solutions to the issue should be—and who is authorized to pursue them.  Over the years, efforts to address climate change have taken many forms, from international agreements to federal statutes to interstate compacts.  As policies evolve, some state and local governments have begun exploring novel theories through existing doctrine—including the law of public nuisance—for a pathway to seek relief, through individual courts, for alleged climate‑related harms.  Several recent decisions, however, reveal that the legal landscape remains in flux, with courts charting different courses through the crosswinds of federal law. 

Federal Common Law and the Displacement Doctrine

Despite the proclaimed extinction of “federal general common law” in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), federal common law still exists today in certain areas of national concern.  Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 410–421 (2011).  One such area is the general subject of environmental law and, specifically, ambient or interstate air and water pollution.  Id.  Thus, federal common law can apply to transboundary pollution suits, and they are often based on a theory of public nuisance.  Under federal common law, a public nuisance is defined as “unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”  Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B(1) (1979).

The right to assert a federal common-law public nuisance claim is not without limits, however.  …

August 1, 2025

A Glimpse Into the Future of Data Centers and Energy Innovation

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV

OnRAMP Magazine

(by Jonathan Kersting featuring Moore Capito)

It’s no secret that data centers play a crucial role in our everyday lives. From managing the data behind our social media posts to controlling critical infrastructure, they have become integral to our existence. With the increasing demand for technology and computing power, there’s a surge in need for new, energy-hungry data centers. This demand is projected to outpace the entire power consumption of major cities, signaling a pressing challenge for our current energy infrastructure.

Recently, I had the opportunity to delve into a conversation with Moore Capito, a shareholder at Babst Calland, specializing in corporate, energy, and emerging technologies, about this very transformation.

With Capito’s hands-on energy sector experience and insights into emerging technologies, he focuses his corporate legal practice on leveraging fossil fuel resources with cutting-edge developments to effectively support critical infrastructure like data centers. Prior to Babst Calland, Moore served as in-house counsel for one of the largest oil and gas production companies in West Virginia, giving him deep firsthand knowledge of energy operations in the Appalachian Basin.

The Modern-Day Gold Rush

“Interestingly, the growth of data centers has been likened to a modern-day gold rush,” says Capito. He notes how developers, energy companies, and technology giants are racing to find strategic locations to build new centers, taking advantage of regions rich in fossil fuels. For the first time, we can take the data center to the power. And that’s where West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania have a great opportunity.”

With the availability of land, access to existing power infrastructure, and potential for expansion, Capito explains, West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania regions may become central hubs in the race to address the energy and infrastructure demands of burgeoning data centers near and far. …

Top