May 01, 2026|Press
By Sebastian Obando
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.”
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.”
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.”
To view the full article, click here.
