People who object to the federal permits for a pipeline, a power line or a solar farm can now have as long as six years to challenge them in court, by one law firm's reckoning. A bill released by four senators on 30 September would give them 150 days.
That is the provision that will draw the most fire, but it is one of dozens in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. The bill was written by the chairs and ranking members of the two committees that oversee energy and the environment: Mike Lee of Utah and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, both Republicans, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, both Democrats. At more than 400 pages, it would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Federal Power Act, according to an analysis of the bill by the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke.
"We once built projects like the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Empire State Building in years, not decades," Mr Lee said when it was released.
Deadlines, and fewer ways to stop a project
The committee's fact sheet sets out the timetable. Environmental impact statements, the long reviews for big projects, would have to be finished within two years. Environmental assessments, the shorter form, would have one year. Agencies that miss the deadlines would face consequences, and project sponsors could petition a court to enforce them, according to the Troutman analysis.
Lawsuits under the four main environmental laws would have to be filed within 150 days. Generally only people or groups who took part in the comment period or tribal consultation could bring them. The same 150-day limit would apply to challenges under any federal law to energy and mining authorisations, Troutman said. Challenges would go straight to the federal courts of appeals. If a court found a flaw in a review under the National Environmental Policy Act, it would generally send the permit back to the agency to fix rather than cancel it, and the permit would stay in force in the meantime.
Some work would not need the environmental review at all, including upgrades inside existing rights of way. That covers reconductoring transmission lines, which means restringing them with cable that carries more power, and adding capacity to existing interstate gas pipelines.
The law firm's reading is that the bill would reduce litigation risk without removing it. Opponents could still sue under substantive laws such as the Clean Air Act, and may shift their challenges there.
Protection that cuts both ways
The provision with the largest consequences for investors may be the one that protects permits once granted. Under the bill, the government could revoke or disturb a valid permit only on narrow grounds, such as a court order, a material violation or fraud. No administration could block all solar, wind or any other class of energy project without facing legal action and fines, the committee says.
That protection is symmetrical. It would constrain the current administration's holds on wind and solar approvals, Troutman noted, and it would equally constrain a future administration that wanted to unwind oil and gas approvals. That is the trade at the centre of the deal: each party gives up the ability to stop the other's projects in exchange for certainty about its own.
The grid, and who pays for it
The bill's second half is about electricity. It would strengthen the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's "backstop" power to approve interstate transmission lines, which has seen little use since 2005, by removing the requirement that a line sit inside a federally designated corridor. Neighbouring planning regions would have to plan lines between them jointly, with costs allocated to the customers who benefit. Wholesale electricity markets would have to admit distributed generation and virtual power plants. The Bureau of Land Management would have 60 days to approve geothermal drilling permits.
Data centers get their own clause. FERC would revise its transmission pricing so that data centers pay both the existing and the additional cost of the transmission service they use, and states could set separate data center rates. The fact sheet describes this as replacing "a voluntary structure". The House has passed a different approach, the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would require state regulators to consider whether data centers of 100 megawatts or more should pay the full cost of the generation, transmission and distribution upgrades that serve them.
"As data centers drive demand for more power, it will ensure they pay their fair share of the grid upgrades they require – not leave that bill to American families," Mr Heinrich said.
The pressure behind that clause is visible in the construction figures. Spending on data center construction reached an annual rate of $85 billion in August, this publication reported on Saturday, more than the spending on the category of factories that includes chip plants.
Texas would sit outside much of this. The grid run by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is exempt from the bill's siting and planning provisions. Texas is setting its own terms instead: on 21 September Governor Greg Abbott ordered the state's environmental regulator to issue no permits for data center projects until the grid operator completes an audit of those in its connection queue, and listed conditions including that projects cover all of their electrical infrastructure costs.
The calendar
The bill needs 60 votes in the Senate and then passage by the House, in the short session after the 3 November election. The Senate has recessed until then, and Ms Capito has said she wants it to be the first vote when senators return. The last bipartisan permitting deal, in 2024, stalled after that year's election.
Early signals from the House are mixed. Bruce Westerman, the Republican chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, called the agreement an encouraging step, while Jared Huffman, the committee's senior Democrat, has urged colleagues to wait for a stronger negotiating position after the election, according to Troutman. The sponsors have invited comments before they produce an amended text.
The bill's provisions are from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's press release and fact sheet on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (30 September 2026), including the senators' statements, and from an analysis of the bill text by the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke published on JD Supra (4 October 2026), which is the source for the page count, the six-year comparison, the remand provisions, the right-of-way exclusions, the FERC and ERCOT details, the House Ratepayer Protection Act comparison, the Senate schedule and the remarks attributed to Representatives Westerman and Huffman. The Texas directive is described from Troutman Pepper Locke's analysis of Governor Greg Abbott's 21 September order, published on JD Supra (5 October 2026). Accurate to 5pm ET on 5 October 2026.
Topics nationalinfrastructuredata centerscongresselectricity
