Fossil fuels get guarantees. Renewables get promises.

Inside the permitting bill that is dominating the lame duck Congress

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks during a bipartisan all-member Veterans Day tribute at the U.S. Capitol on November 11, 2026. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

On Monday, the Senate voted 73-25 to advance permitting legislation, known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), that aims to expedite the approval of new energy projects, including for both fossil fuels and renewable energy. The legislation was authored by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-UT).

Supporters of the legislation are framing it as a way to lower energy costs for Americans and reduce red tape. But critics of the legislation, including many environmental groups, argue that it would also weaken key environmental laws, undermine tribal protections, facilitate more data center construction, and depend on the Trump administration to implement it fairly.

The legislation provides the fossil fuel industry with some ironclad wins. For example, the legislation limits the ability for people to challenge projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by requiring lawsuits to be filed within 150 days of the project’s approval. In order to sue, people would have also had to participate in the project’s public comment period. Furthermore, if a court finds a NEPA violation, it cannot cancel a permit, but can only send it back to the agency.

The legislation also weakens states’ abilities to block permitted projects that could impact water quality. State regulators would be required to “prove they would cause harm,” rather than “requiring pipeline companies and other developers to show their projects would protect water quality,” according to Inside Climate News. State regulators would have to provide “clear and convincing evidence” before denying certification.

While the legislation also contains provisions that could benefit renewable energy, many depend on implementation by the Trump administration. For example, the Trump administration would be responsible for making permitting available for renewables.

The legislation states that “all Federal agencies shall treat all applications for Federal authorizations or permits fairly and efficiently.” But the bill makes it difficult for those denied permits to prove wrongdoing. It requires filing a lawsuit that proves the project was “denied in bad faith as part of a pattern of disparate treatment by the Federal Government against the specific type of covered project at issue.” Critically, “[s]tatements, policies, Executive orders, or other guidance” that express support for or opposition to a type of project but are unrelated to permitting could not be considered evidence.

President Trump has championed the legislation, calling it “a BIG WIN for U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and DOMINANCE.” But Trump has already pledged that no wind projects will be approved. “I will not approve wind turbines because wind turbines are a major loser,” Trump told reporters.

Whitehouse has said that passage of the legislation relies on support for wind projects from the Trump administration. On Tuesday, Whitehouse dismissed Trump’s comments, stating that, “As long as the agencies continue to come through with the representations and promises that they have made — and we will see more of that in the next few days — then on we go, and we chalk that up to him being 80.” Counting on administration officials to disobey Trump is a dubious strategy.

The legislation was advanced without any public hearings. A rewritten version of the bill, which is 494 pages long, was released on Saturday, giving legislators little time to review before the vote on Monday. Republicans are in a rush to pass the legislation before the new Democrat-controlled Congress is sworn in.

If the legislation passes the Senate, it will then need to pass the House. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said that he expects the House to pass the bill. But with a razor-thin majority, it will likely require Democratic votes. A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told Politico last week that the bill “falls short in several areas.”

Democrats could wait and hope to refine the legislation when they have control of Congress next session. But Whitehouse argued that it would be harder to pass next year, stating that “there’s no guarantee Congress would ever find another compromise that would be able to pass the Senate.”

Data centers pay more, but still come out on top

In last week’s midterm election, voters demonstrated strong opposition to data centers. There were 40 ballot measures across the country to ban or restrict data center construction and 38 of them passed. Exit polls showed that 76% of voters would oppose a new data center in their community and 56% of voters considered AI and data centers as a crucial or major factor in how they voted for Congress.

While voters made their opinion on data centers clear, the legislation’s approach to the issue is muddled.

The bill would require data centers to pay for the full cost of adding additional energy capacity, instead of passing the cost on to ratepayers and driving up utility bills. Studies have shown that this would raise costs for data centers by $35 billion over the next decade while household utility bills would decrease by up to $78 per year by 2040.

While the ratepayer protection provision is costly for data centers, critics of the bill say that it is an overall win for the data center industry. Allie Rosenbluth, the U.S. campaigns manager for Oil Change International, an environmental nonprofit, said the bill was a “massive giveaway“ for data centers that could increase fossil fuel usage.

Data centers require massive amounts of power, and in many cases, new data centers have been built alongside new gas power plants to fuel them. The legislation’s permitting changes will make it easier for data center owners to build these power sources and thus make it easier to build new data centers. The legislation’s environmental review and tribal consultation provisions could also expedite approval of proposals for data centers on public land, of which there are currently at least 17.

The legislation has been endorsed by the Corporate Energy Buyers Association and the Electricity Customer Alliance, two industry groups that represent major data center users like Google and Meta.

Who supports the permitting bill and who opposes it

A broad coalition of industry groups is hailing the legislation as a win.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a letter encouraging Congress to pass the legislation, calling it a “historic opportunity to modernize a system that too often delays progress and drives up costs.” Hundreds of local chambers of commerce and other industry groups signed onto the letter.

Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, said, “We support the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. America cannot build the energy projects it needs if approvals take years and outcomes remain uncertain.” The American Petroleum Institute, with 137 other fossil fuel industry groups, signed onto a letter urging the passage of the bill.

Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said the bill would “substantially increase the deployment of clean resources.” A handful of environmental groups have backed the bill, including Evergreen Action.

Most environmental organizations, however, oppose the legislation. Hundreds of other environmental organizations have sent letters to congressional leaders expressing concerns with the bill. Sierra Club Executive Director Loren Blackford said, “As written, this bill achieves critical wins on transmission and potential emissions reduction. However, this does not justify abandoning Tribal consultation, clean water safeguards, and wildlife protections, nor further enabling a rogue president that is waging a war on clean energy.”

The bill has also been criticized by Native American organizations who argue that the bill does not go far enough to protect tribal sovereignty. A letter signed by 10 tribal organizations says the bill “disregards the sovereign rights of Tribal Nations.”

Democratic senators who voted against advancing the bill, including Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, have expressed concern over the threat to tribal sovereignty posed by the bill. Additionally, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) voted to advance the bill this week, but said she would not support it in a final vote unless the provisions related to tribal sovereignty were changed. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also supported making changes to the bill during the amendment process.

Sixteen Democratic attorneys general have sent a letter to congressional leaders expressing “substantial concerns” about the bill, saying it “would deliver insufficient benefits for the significant tradeoffs it makes.”