Clearing the Path: Environmental Permitting in the Era of Renewed American Manufacturing

주요 요점:

• Environmental reviews can cause major project delays. Manufacturers must navigate complex federal, state, and local approvals that can stall construction if not planned early.
• Some reforms are streamlining — but vary by state. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling and new federal guidance aim to speed NEPA reviews, while states take differing approaches to environmental review.
• Proactive permitting strategies — through early consultation, smart siting, and community engagement — help manufacturers avoid delays and move projects forward with confidence.

Manufacturers expanding in the U.S. often plan for tax incentives, labor, and logistics—but not the time it takes to secure environmental approvals from state and federal regulators. Whether building new, expanding, or upgrading existing facilities, companies may encounter a complex mix of local, state, and federal permitting requirements—covering air emissions, stormwater and wastewater discharges, wetland impacts, water withdrawals, and impacts to wildlife or endangered species. In some cases, projects may also trigger review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or a state-level equivalent.

These reviews are intended to protect air, water, and ecosystems and to help ensure that growth is sustainable. These processes are not just bureaucratic hurdles—they’re path critical. As the U.S. manufacturing renaissance accelerates, companies that plan ahead can turn environmental permitting from a source of delay into a competitive advantage. Some recent federal and state reforms can make reviews faster, more focused, and more predictable—if businesses know how to navigate them.

Environmental Approvals Can Cause Costly Delays

For decades, environmental permitting has long been a source of delay for complex construction projects, particularly those involving federal approvals or sensitive environmental resources. Delays in permitting can stall projects for months or even years, adding uncertainty and cost.

Take NEPA reviews, as just one example. NEPA, originally designed to ensure that federal agencies “look before they leap,” requires regulators to assess the environmental impacts of “major federal actions” before making permitting decisions. Under NEPA, and its state equivalents, agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement—or EIS—when a project could significantly affect the environment; it’s a detailed report that evaluates potential impacts and alternatives before a final decision is made.

EISs once spanned hundreds of pages but now routinely run into the thousands of pages, and reviews and approvals can take years for agencies to complete. EISs are costly. They require retention of experts to study a host of potential issues including species, wetlands, noise, traffic, geological, and emission impacts.

In some cases, opponents to a proposed construction project use NEPA and its state counterparts strategically to delay or derail development by challenging the scope or sufficiency of the EIS.

A Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Urges More Efficient Environmental Reviews

Recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Trump Administration signal a more streamlined, focused approach to environmental review—one that could help manufacturers move projects forward with greater speed and certainty.

Leading the way is a recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Seven County assessed a lower court decision that invalidated a 3,600-page EIS for failing to analyze upstream and downstream environmental impacts not directly caused by the proposed railroad project at issue.[1] The unanimous Seven County Court called for a “course correction,” warning that NEPA had been transformed from a “modest procedural requirement” into a “blunt and haphazard tool” used to slow or stop infrastructure projects.[2]

The Court emphasized that agencies must focus on the project before them—not hypothetical ripple effects from other projects “separate in time or place.”[3] The Court made clear: “A relatively modest infrastructure project should not be turned into a scapegoat for everything that ensues from upstream oil drilling to downstream refinery emissions.”[4]

This decision does not mean environmental review is going away, but it may signal a more balanced approach to such reviews, at least at the federal level. Agencies still need to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts—but courts must give agencies room to make reasonable, scientific decisions. And when agencies stay within their lane, they should not be second-guessed for not analyzing attenuated impacts.

This clarification is significant for manufacturers, who often face NEPA-triggered delays even when their projects are environmentally sound and economically vital.

The Federal Government Aims for More Efficient Reviews, Too

The Seven County decision dovetails with changes from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). On November 12, 2024, in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that CEQ lacks the authority to issue binding regulations.[5] This was a shocking ruling—CEQ has been promulgating NEPA regulations for almost 50 years under the auspices that its regulations were binding. Invalidating CEQ’s regulations erased EIS and NEPA rules that had been incorporated by many federal and state agencies.

On February 25, 2025, following the Marin Audubon decision and an Executive Order from President Trump (EO 14154), CEQ withdrew its binding NEPA regulations and is now issuing non-binding guidance to help agencies align their procedures with recent case law.[6] While not binding, CEQ encourages agencies to emphasize:

1. Shorter timelines for EISs,
2. Clearer scoping to avoid analysis of speculative or unrelated impacts,
3. Greater interagency coordination, and
4. Public transparency throughout the review process.

The bottom line: federal agencies are being encouraged to move faster, stay focused, and avoid speculative analysis.

Some States Are Following Suit While Others Stay the Course

As federal agencies move toward faster, more focused environmental reviews, many states are modernizing their own permitting systems with digital tools, clearer timelines, and greater transparency. But not all states are moving in the same direction.

Standardization in Virginia—Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality launched a major overhaul of its stormwater permitting process which took effect July 1, 2024. The new handbook consolidates and modernizes regulatory guidance for new development, redevelopment, and upgrades to existing sites. It seeks to (a) streamline permit review timelines, (b) standardize best management practices (BMPs), and (c) incorporate stakeholder feedback through a new committee. Its goal is to create a more predictable and transparent permitting framework.

Digitalization in Arizona—Arizona’s Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) implemented a fully digital environmental permitting and compliance portal. It allows businesses to apply for permits, submit reports, and track compliance online, significantly reducing administrative burdens and improving transparency. Arizona’s mission is to deliver “government at the speed of business.”[7] Early reports indicate that the online portal has reduced permit processing times by 93%, digitized 98% of services, and reaped an annual economic benefit of about $164 million.[8]

Project-Specific Streamlining in California & Massachusetts—Streamlining environmental reviews at the state level is often driven by specific project types. In June, California signed into law revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act that would exempt certain housing projects from environmental review.[9] Similarly, Massachusetts is in the middle of a rulemaking to streamline environmental reviews for certain housing, ecological restoration, and urban renewal plans.[10]

Others Push Back—Not all states are embracing the federal trend. Nineteen state attorneys general opposed CEQ’s withdrawal of its NEPA regulations,[11] and some states are strengthening their own environmental review laws.[12]

The takeaway for manufacturers? State-level permitting dynamics vary widely. Understanding where a state stands—whether it’s streamlining or adding new layers of review—should be a key part of any site selection strategy.

Change in NEPA Approach May be a Relief for Industry

For manufacturers, recent changes to NEPA and environmental reviews at the federal level—and in some states—offer real business value: faster time to market, fewer legal surprises, and greater confidence in long-term planning. For manufacturers investing in clean technologies, advanced manufacturing, and energy transition infrastructure, a streamlined permitting environment also helps level the playing field—while still ensuring meaningful environmental oversight.

Of course, NEPA is just one piece of the puzzle. Manufacturers must still navigate a range of other environmental approvals and resource considerations. Permitting strategy should be integrated into early-stage planning, not treated as a post-site-selection hurdle. But with the right strategy, permitting can be managed and growth can move forward with confidence.

Other Environmental Permitting and Resources Integral to Development

While the Trump Administration and U.S. Supreme Court have signaled a move to more streamlined environmental reviews and a major overhaul of NEPA, many development projects or expansions that lack a federal nexus and do not otherwise implicate NEPA or its state counterparts may nevertheless need to secure a panoply of other environmental permits at the local, state or federal level and may require significant environmental resources that will be essential to making siting decisions and that can have a significant impact on project cost and timing.

An expansion project or new development could require permits for air emissions, stormwater discharges, wastewater discharges, wetlands impacts, impacts to endangered species or their habitat, and impacts to shorelands, among others. Local governments may have additional permitting requirements related to zoning.

Beyond permitting, companies will need to consider their natural resource needs when siting a project. For example, semi-conductor manufacturers and data centers, which require significant volumes of water for their operations, will need to ensure they have an adequate water supply prior to developing or expanding in an area. Whether supplying water through contracts with an existing water supplier, seeking a new surface water right, or pumping groundwater, each may trigger additional regulatory requirements.    

Practical Permitting Strategies

Manufacturers should proactively strategize to ensure a comprehensive, though efficient, plan is in place for securing all necessary permits. Missing a single permit, or underestimating how long a permit could take to secure, could put an indefinite hold on a project and increase costs as a result. To avoid such pitfalls, some things manufacturers might consider are:

1. Early consultation. Getting experts involved early in the process can help determine the universe of applicable environmental permits. Likewise, engaging with relevant state and federal regulators early can help things move more smoothly going forward, and many agencies require pre-permit reviews prior to permit application submittal.
2. Site selection. As noted above, not all sites are created equal. For example, a facility requiring a major source air permit located in an area designated as being in “nonattainment” will trigger more burdensome requirements, including the potential need for emission credits, which can be scarce or prohibitively expensive to acquire in many areas. Siting in an area with endangered or threatened species, wetlands, or historical artifacts could trigger additional, potentially lengthy, agency consultations and procedures.
3. Public involvement. States and agencies also have different procedures for when and how the community may get involved in project development or expansion. In some cases, a project opponent can contest the issuance of a permit, triggering a lengthy administrative process similar to a court proceeding. Some states have provisions that allow a permittee to abbreviate this process. In Texas, for example, a permit-seeker that knows it will likely be challenged can opt to send its permit application directly to an administrative body, bypassing the months-long process of establishing who, if anyone, is sufficiently affected by the permit to bring a challenge. More fundamentally, building a relationship with the relevant community may create opportunities for a permittee to address concerns without having to go through a hearing in the first place.

It’s an exciting time for American manufacturing and development. Environmental review and permitting requirements can be complex and highly technical, and can be a thorn in the side of development and expansion. However, with the right permitting strategy these requirements can be managed and met in due course rather than creating a stumbling block for new growth.  

[1] Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. ___ (2025).

[2] Id. at slip op. at 12, 13.

[3] Id. at slip op. at 19.

[4] Id.

[5] Marin Audubon Soc’y v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

[6] Council on Env’t Quality, Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (Sept. 29, 2025), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Agency-NEPA-Implementation-Guidance.pdf.

[7] Ariz. Gov’t Transformation Off., The Arizona Management System: An Evaluation of Continuous Improvement in State Government 1–2 (Dec. 2022), https://results.az.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/AMS%20evaluation%2012.20.22_0.pdf.

[8] Ariz. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, Project Investment Justification: myDEQ Underground Storage Tank Applications Improvements – FY24, at 9–10 (June 21, 2023), https://aset.az.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/EV23014%20PIJ-ITAC-PRESO%20062123.pdf.

[9] Cal. Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130.

[10] Mass. Exec. Off. Energy & Envt’l Affairs, Background Document on Proposed Regulations by Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office, Oct. 7, 2025, https://www.mass.gov/doc/mepa-regulations-background-document-10725/download.

[11] Comments of Attorneys General re: Interim Final Rule – Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, Mar. 27, 2025, Docket No. CEQ-2025-0002.

[12] See, e.g., New York Dep’t of Envt’l Conservation, The Environmental Justice Siting Law, last visited Oct. 20, 2025, https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/environmental-justice/the-environmental-justice-siting-law (agency undergoing rulemaking to implement law requiring agencies, as part of their environmental review, to consider whether an action may cause or increase a disproportionate pollution burden on a disadvantaged community); Held v. Montana, 419 Mont. 403 (2024) (finding unconstitutional a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that precluded an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions during environmental reviews).