In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that significantly narrowed the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a foundational federal law governing environmental impact assessments (EIAs) since 1970. The decision limits the federal government's obligation to conduct full environmental reviews for certain infrastructure and energy projects—particularly where indirect or upstream emissions are concerned.
Although this change was framed as a move toward administrative efficiency and permitting reform, it also weakens one of the few legal mechanisms used to assess the climate impacts of federally approved projects. For companies, particularly those in the energy, transportation, and infrastructure sectors, the implications are profound: fewer federally mandated guardrails mean greater exposure to litigation, reputational risk, and inconsistent expectations across jurisdictions.
This article explores what the ruling means for climate governance in the United States—and how businesses can proactively adjust their compliance, reporting, and project development practices in response.
Before the ruling, NEPA required federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major projects, often through Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Environmental Assessments (EA). This included evaluating:
The Supreme Court’s decision reinterprets NEPA’s language to focus strictly on direct, proximate effects. This means that upstream and downstream climate impacts—such as lifecycle emissions from fossil fuel infrastructure—are no longer automatically subject to federal review.
Critically, the Court also ruled that climate impact assessments cannot be mandated based on “speculative” future effects, such as global carbon concentration or distant climate risks. This effectively removes greenhouse gas emissions from being a trigger for full NEPA review in many contexts.
While some stakeholders view this as a deregulatory efficiency measure, others raise concerns that it creates legal gaps in long-term climate oversight. For companies, the practical effect is a less predictable permitting environment—and a higher burden to self-justify environmental safeguards.
With federal guardrails loosened, companies face a threefold impact:
As a result, corporate climate governance must evolve—not to fill a legal void per se, but to preserve license to operate and investor trust amid a fragmented regulatory environment.
To manage both risk and credibility, organizations should consider the following adaptations:
Ultimately, companies will be judged not only by legal compliance but by the credibility and robustness of their internal governance systems. Climate leadership in this new era requires transparency, traceability, and a proactive approach to managing regulatory ambiguity.
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit NEPA’s scope marks a turning point in U.S. climate governance. While federal regulatory obligations have narrowed, corporate responsibility has expanded. Businesses operating in high-impact sectors must now take on a greater share of environmental due diligence, risk management, and public accountability.
Rather than wait for a future reinstatement of federal climate mandates, leading companies can use this moment to reinforce internal governance, bolster ESG credibility, and align more closely with investor and stakeholder expectations. Climate risk is not going away; what’s changing is who is responsible for managing it—and how visibly.
Companies that act now to integrate voluntary assessments, state-level alignment, and stakeholder engagement into their operations will not only de-risk their projects but also position themselves as responsible actors in a shifting regulatory order.
Over 200 companies are quietly pausing or revising their SBTi targets in 2025. This article investigates whether this trend reflects a strategic ESG recalibration amid regulatory pressure, scope 3 complexity, and greenhushing concerns—or signals a broader shift in corporate climate accountability.
