Energy Permitting Gets Faster as ESA ‘Harm’ Rule Rescinded, Lawsuits Loom

For the climate and energy sector, the Endangered Species Act has long been a double-edged sword—protecting species while slowing down renewable and fossil fuel projects alike. The Trump administration’s newly rescinded definition of ‘harm’ tilts the balance toward speed, potentially unlocking thousands of megawatts of delayed capacity. But as tribes and environmentalists sue, energy developers face renewed legal uncertainty and the specter of stranded assets if courts later reinstate protections.

On July 15, 2026, a coalition of Washington state tribes and nine environmental groups filed two separate lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging a recent regulatory rollback that eliminates the legal definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rule change, announced by the Department of the Interior on July 10, is designed to reduce permitting requirements and compliance costs for landowners, farmers, and energy producers. It marks a significant shift in federal environmental policy, with far-reaching implications for species protection, land development, and the balance of power between conservation and industry.

“

The rule change, announced by the Department of the Interior on July 10, is designed to reduce permitting requirements and compliance costs for landowners, farmers, and energy producers.

The ESA, enacted in 1973, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. biodiversity law, requiring federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy critical habitat. Central to its implementation has been the definition of “harm,” which historically encompassed significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife. By rescinding this definition, the Interior Department effectively narrows the scope of what constitutes a violation of the act, potentially allowing activities that previously required mitigation plans—such as logging, mining, and energy infrastructure projects—to proceed without addressing their impact on critical habitat.

The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court for Western Washington, argue that the rule change ignores scientific consensus and violates the ESA’s core mandate. Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, stated that the change “paves the way for the destruction of important wildlife habitat.” The plaintiffs highlight the increased risks to iconic species like Chinook salmon, steelhead, grizzly bears, and northern spotted owls, all of which rely on federally protected habitats in the Pacific Northwest. For tribes with treaty-secured fishing rights, the degradation of salmon and steelhead runs poses a direct threat to cultural and economic survival.

The administration defends the rule as a necessary correction, citing a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that constrained regulatory overreach. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum argued that “for years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” and that the new rule provides “much-needed certainty for landowners.” The rule is expected to accelerate the approval of energy projects, including those on federal lands, by removing a layer of environmental review. This aligns with the administration’s broader push to streamline infrastructure development and reduce regulatory hurdles.

The potential consequences, however, extend beyond the courtroom. Critical habitat designations cover millions of acres across the country; removing the harm standard could lead to widespread habitat fragmentation and loss, undercutting decades of conservation efforts. While industry groups welcome the move as a needed reform to prevent litigation-driven delays, environmental scientists warn that the decision ignores the interconnected nature of ecosystems. Habitat loss is a primary driver of species decline, and the ESA’s “harm” provision has been instrumental in preventing projects that would irreparably damage breeding and feeding grounds.

The litigation is likely to wend through the courts for years, creating uncertainty for both developers and conservationists. Should the lawsuits succeed, the rule could be remanded or vacated, reinstating the previous interpretation of harm. If upheld, the decision would set a precedent for other ESA rollbacks, potentially affecting species across the country. The outcome will be closely watched by the energy, timber, and agricultural sectors, as well as by states and tribes with significant federal land holdings.