EPA Revokes Greenhouse Gas Finding: Construction Permit Process Simplified Amid Legal Uncertainty

This topic is part of "The Dotted Line" series, which delves into the complex legal landscape of the construction industry. To view the entire series,click here。

Contractors are about to face a distinctly different permitting landscape. But construction law experts point out that this does not necessarily mean the process will become simpler.

The Trump administration took action earlier this year to revoke theEPA's greenhouse gas endangerment finding, thereby removing the legal cornerstone of federal greenhouse gas regulation. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the move the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

Tyler Fry, a construction attorney at the Sacramento-based public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, said this change could ease some compliance burdens for builders, especially on large industrial and infrastructure projects.

But the move also introduces new uncertainties that contractors and project owners need to navigate carefully.

"The most important takeaway is that the EPA has removed the legal foundation that supported more than a decade of federal climate regulation," Fry told Construction Dive. "The 2009 endangerment finding was not just a rule; it was the statutory authorization that made the entire downstream regulatory framework legally possible."

Meanwhile, Jack Luellen, special counsel at the Denver-based law firm Buchalter and a member of its Energy and Natural Resources practice group, said the revocation also signals a shift in federal priorities on emissions and energy policy.

"The most obvious impact of the revocation is that there is no longer a federal mandate to control greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles," Luellen told Construction Dive. "Many people view the revocation as an expression of the desire to restore coal as a key fuel for power generation."

Impact of regulatory revocation on construction sites

Contractors on large construction projects may be the first to see the impact in permitting timelines.

Previously, the endangerment finding brought greenhouse gas emissions into the permitting process known as "Prevention of Significant Deterioration." Fry said this required builders to conduct "best available control technology" analyses for emissions on major projects.

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

"If the revocation stands, greenhouse gas emissions may largely drop out of that analysis, which would streamline PSD review for many project types," Fry said. "Permitting timelines are the area where contractors are most likely to see practical changes first."

Luellen also agreed that the regulatory environment may shift toward faster approvals.

"The change in the regulatory environment means the federal government will be less involved in permitting and environmental reviews," Luellen said. "A question going forward is whether state and local governments will step in to fill the regulatory gap."

Agencies have increasingly required developers to consider greenhouse gas impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, such practices may now face a weaker legal foundation. Nevertheless, Fry noted that the situation is not uniform across the country.

"State-level permitting requirements, particularly in California, New York, and other states with independent climate regulatory frameworks, remain fully in effect," Fry said. "Project owners operating in multiple jurisdictions should not assume that federal deregulation equates to state-level deregulation. For these projects, a careful state-by-state analysis remains crucial."

Change leaves industry in "legal limbo"

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

The biggest variable is the legal challenges expected to follow the revocation. For example, environmental groups have alreadyfiled lawsuits to restore the finding. This means the issue's status could be in flux. If courts ultimately restore the endangerment finding, projects that moved forward under a lighter regulatory regime could face mid-course changes.

"The important caveat is that until the litigation over the revocation is resolved, the long-term regulatory outlook remains uncertain," Fry said. "Companies and project owners should view this as a significant development, not a final outcome."

Luellen said this uncertainty could expose contractors to different types of legal risks, especially if the regulatory environment shifts again under a future administration.

"I think the change in the regulatory environment increases litigation risk because projects will no longer be shielded by liability protections," Luellen said. "If a subsequent administration reverses the revocation, there could also be additional liability issues. This back-and-forth between administrations could leave projects in legal limbo, which environmental groups and other litigants could exploit."

Fry said that if the revocation withstands legal scrutiny, it could ultimately reduce a common avenue for project challenges. Greenhouse gas-related permitting requirements often served as the basis for environmental groups to challenge approvals. He added that removing these triggers could limit certain legal risks for builders.

"Fewer regulatory hooks typically means fewer grounds for legal challenges," Fry said. "Overall, this trend is positive for the construction industry."