Listen to the article

5 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

This feature is part of “The Dotted Line” series, which takes an in-depth look at the complex legal landscape of the construction industry. To view the entire series, click here.

Contractors will soon face a very different permitting landscape. But that does not necessarily mean a simpler process, according to construction attorneys.

President Donald Trump’s administration’s moved earlier this year to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, stripping away the legal backbone of federal greenhouse gas regulation. EPA head Lee Zeldin described the move as the largest deregulation in U.S. history.

The change would likely ease certain compliance burdens for builders, particularly on large industrial and infrastructure projects, said Tyler Fry, a construction attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based public interest law firm.

But the move also introduces a new layer of uncertainty that contractors and project owners will need to navigate carefully.

“The most important takeaway is that EPA has removed the legal foundation upon which more than a decade of federal climate regulation was built,” Fry told Construction Dive. “The 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not merely one rule, it was the statutory mandate that made an entire architecture of downstream regulation legally possible.”

At the same time, the repeal signals a change in federal priorities around emissions and energy policy, said Jack Luellen, Denver-based special counsel for law firm Buchalter and a member of its Energy & Natural Resources practice group.

“The most obvious implication of the repeal is that there no longer is a federal mandate to control greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles,” Luellen told Construction Dive. “Many see the repeal as an expression of the desire to restore coal as a key power generating fuel.”

Regulatory rollback’s effect on jobsites

Contractors on large-scale construction projects may see the most immediate impacts in permitting timelines.

The endangerment finding previously brought greenhouse gas emissions into a permitting process known as Prevention of Significant Deterioration. That required builders to conduct “best available control technology” analyses for emissions on major projects, said Fry.

However, those requirements often added time and cost to project approvals.

“If the repeal holds, greenhouse gas emissions could largely exit that analysis, which would streamline PSD reviews for many project types,” said Fry. “Permitting timelines are the area where contractors are most likely to see tangible change first.”

Luellen agreed the regulatory environment could also move in favor of faster approvals.

“The change in the regulatory environment means that the federal government will be much less intrusive in permitting and environmental review,” said Luellen. “A question looking ahead is whether state and local governments will step in to fill the regulatory void.”

Agencies have increasingly required developers to account for greenhouse gas impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the practice may now face a weaker legal footing. That said, the picture is not uniform nationally, according to Fry.

“State-level permitting requirements, particularly in California, New York and other states with independent climate regulatory frameworks, remain fully in force,” said Fry. “Project owners operating across multiple jurisdictions should not assume that federal regulatory relief translates to state-level relief. For those projects, a careful state-by-state analysis remains essential.”

Changes leave industry in ‘a legal limbo’

Though the rollback reduces certain regulatory burdens, the move also introduces new risks for construction contracts and project planning, said Fry.

The biggest wildcard is the legal challenge expected to follow the repeal. For example, environmental groups have already sued to get the measure reinstated. That means the status of the issue could be in flux. If courts ultimately reinstate the endangerment finding, projects that moved forward under a lighter regulatory regime could face midstream changes.

“The important caveat is that until that litigation is resolved surrounding the repeal, the long-term regulatory picture remains unsettled,” said Fry. “Businesses and project owners should treat this as a meaningful development, not a final one.”

Luellen said that uncertainty could expose contractors to a different kind of legal risk, especially if the regulatory environment changes again under future administrations.

“I think the changed regulatory environment raises the specter of increased litigation risk because projects will no longer be insulated from liability,” said Luellen. “There may be additional issues of potential liability if a subsequent administration reverses the repeal. Such a back-and-forth between administrations could leave projects in a legal limbo that could be exploited by environmental groups and other litigants.”

If the repeal withstands legal scrutiny, it could ultimately reduce one common avenue for project challenges, said Fry. Greenhouse gas-related permitting requirements often served as a basis for environmental groups to contest approvals. A removal of those triggers may limit some legal exposure for builders, he added.

“Fewer regulatory hooks generally means fewer grounds for legal challenges,” said Fry. “Overall, the trajectory here is positive for the construction industry.”