The United States must return to building energy and other infrastructure in reasonable timeframes. Rising electricity demand, concerns about energy affordability and reliability, and the need to deploy more clean energy all underscore the urgency; lengthy and unpredictable permitting processes make it harder and more expensive to get projects built. Addressing these challenges requires rethinking how projects are reviewed and approved, while balancing important questions about environmental protections and public participation.
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA), introduced on September 30 by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), seeks to address many of these challenges through a sweeping set of permitting reforms.
To help readers navigate the legislation, C2ES has developed a comprehensive section-by-section summary of BAAJA. Beyond explaining the individual provisions, the paper provides additional context for selected reforms, examining how they would change existing law, their significance, and their potential benefits, drawbacks, and broader implications.
BAAJA goes beyond shortening permitting timelines. It proposes changes to how federal agencies conduct environmental reviews, coordinate decisions, and issue permits. It would also alter judicial review of agency decisions and strengthen protections for previously approved permits, authorizations, and projects. Together, these reforms could change not only how quickly projects are approved, but also how environmental impacts are evaluated, how communities participate in decisions, and when project approvals can be challenged or revisited.
BAAJA also addresses barriers specific to energy infrastructure development. Provisions to strengthen federal transmission siting authority, improve regional and interregional transmission planning processes, and reform generator interconnection could help accelerate deployment of clean energy projects and reduce electricity costs. Other provisions seek to streamline renewable energy, natural gas, geothermal, hydropower and mineral development. While some reforms target specific energy technologies, others would apply broadly across project types, with implications for both clean energy and fossil fuel infrastructure.
Importantly, the potential benefits and tradeoffs differ across the legislation. More coordinated federal reviews could reduce unnecessary delays and duplication. Stronger protections for issued permits could provide developers with greater investment certainty. However, changes that narrow environmental review or limit judicial remedies also raise questions about how agencies and communities can identify and address potential impacts.
Understanding these tradeoffs matters. Permitting reform is not a single policy change, and the consequences of individual provisions depend on how they interact with existing laws and processes.
As Congress considers permitting reform, understanding both the opportunities and the tradeoffs will be important when evaluating how these proposals could shape the country’s ability to build the infrastructure it so desperately needs.
