PFAS Regulation Is Moving Again — Here's What It Means for Your Books
Russ Hissom, CPA
PFAS compliance has whipsawed twice in the past few years. First came federal drinking water limits tight enough to force treatment upgrades at systems that had never needed advanced filtration before. Now regulators are moving to roll parts of that framework back, while settlement money utilities were counting on to help fund the original compliance work is reportedly at risk of drying up before it's fully distributed. If your utility already spent capital chasing the original standard, or is mid-project on treatment upgrades sized for it, this isn't an academic policy question. It's a question about what's sitting on your balance sheet.
What Actually Happened to the Capital You Already Spent
Start with the plain accounting fact: a rollback in the drinking water standard doesn't reverse capitalized costs. If your utility built granular activated carbon or ion exchange treatment, or upsized a plant to meet the original PFAS limits, that plant is still in service, still providing a benefit, and still depreciable over its useful life regardless of what the standard says today. Regulatory whiplash is a rate-recovery and stranded-cost risk, not a reason to write down an asset that's still operating and useful.
Where it gets harder is anything still sitting in construction work in progress, or any planned project that hasn't broken ground. If a board or governing body is now asking whether to pause a PFAS-driven capital project because the federal deadline softened, that's a legitimate question — but pausing a partially built asset raises its own accounting issues, including whether costs incurred to date remain probable of future recovery and whether any carrying costs during the pause should continue to be capitalized.
Regulatory Asset Treatment Is the Tool Built for Exactly This
This is where ASC 980 (for investor-owned and rate-regulated systems) and GASB 62 (for the governmental accounting equivalent) earn their keep. Both frameworks exist because regulated utilities routinely incur costs in one period that regulators intend to allow recovery of over a different, later period. PFAS compliance costs — whether capital or the incremental O&M of running advanced treatment — are about as clean a fit for that framework as exists in the water sector right now.
The test under both frameworks is the same in substance: is it probable that the regulator will allow recovery of the cost through future rates? If yes, the cost gets deferred as a regulatory asset rather than expensed immediately, and amortized over the recovery period the regulator establishes. A rollback of the underlying drinking water standard doesn't automatically fail that test — recovery depends on what your specific regulator or governing board has approved or is expected to approve, not on what EPA does at the federal level. But it does mean you need to revisit the probability assessment and document it again, because "probable" isn't a one-time determination you make and file away.
If your utility deferred PFAS treatment costs as a regulatory asset and is now facing a softer federal standard, your auditor is going to ask for updated support that recovery through rates is still probable. Have the board resolution, rate case order, or governing body minutes ready — don't wait for the audit request to go build that file.
Settlement Funds Were Never a Substitute for a Recovery Plan
A number of systems built PFAS compliance financing plans around expected settlement distributions from manufacturer litigation. Treating that money as a bridge to reduce near-term rate impact was reasonable planning. Treating it as a substitute for a rate-based recovery mechanism was not, and utilities that leaned too hard on the settlement piece are now the ones scrambling.
The distinction matters for how you build a capital financing plan going forward: one-time external funding — settlement proceeds, state grant programs, federal appropriations — should be modeled as upside that reduces the amount financed through rates or debt, never as the base case funding source for a compliance-driven capital project. If it shows up, the rate impact is smaller than planned. If it doesn't, or arrives smaller and later than expected, the underlying rate or debt financing plan still works because it was never dependent on the settlement money in the first place.
Three misreadings I keep running into
"The rollback means we can stop capitalizing PFAS treatment costs."
Costs for an asset already placed in service continue to depreciate on the original schedule. The rollback affects future capital planning decisions, not the accounting for plant already built.
"If the federal standard is voluntary now, our state can't require compliance."
A number of states have their own drinking water standards that are independent of, and in some cases stricter than, the federal minimum. A change at the federal level doesn't automatically change what your state primacy agency requires.
"We can just expense the deferred regulatory asset balance now and be done with it."
Writing off a regulatory asset is itself a judgment that recovery is no longer probable — it needs the same level of documentation and board or regulator input as the original decision to defer the cost. It's not a bookkeeping cleanup item.
Key Takeaway
Federal PFAS policy is a capital-planning input, not an accounting trigger by itself. Before changing how you're recording PFAS-related costs, go back to your own state and local regulatory record — the rate case order, board resolution, or commission decision that authorized recovery — and confirm whether that authorization is still in place. That document, not the federal news cycle, is what your accounting treatment actually rests on.
Utility Accounting and Rates Specialists, LLC is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: NASBAregistry.org.
Disclaimer: The material in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal or accounting advice provided by Utility Accounting & Rates Specialists, LLC. You should seek formal advice on this topic from your accounting or legal advisor.