The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), a massive bill over 400 pages, is designed to make it faster and easier to build energy projects as demand goes up and strain on the grid increases. Initially introduced at the end of September, the Senate voted on November 9 to invoke cloture, limiting the time that can be spent debating the bill as it moves forward.
Energy projects often span multiple states, and are governed by federal regulations, and use federal money. Because of this, permitting reform has been a longtime goal of lawmakers in Congress.
“(BAAJA) does some good things, like help(ing) to streamline the process for modernizing the grid, building new transmission lines, and investing in modernization of the grid,” said Chris Winter, an environmental attorney.
Winter is the director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment at CU Boulder’s School of Law.
The bill alters the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the country’s “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It narrows what must be considered in environmental reviews for energy projects and excludes certain projects from environmental review altogether. It would also limit the types of federal actions that trigger environmental review.
Winter said BAAJA would also limit judicial review. For example, under new restrictions outlined in the bill, if someone sued the BLM over an oil and gas project, saying the environmental review was inadequate, “a federal judge… wouldn't be able to issue an injunction to prevent the drilling from happening,” Winter said.
“All the judge could do is send the document back to the agency for more work, but in the interim, the project would be allowed to move forward.”.
BAAJA also attempts to respond to recent disruptions in the world of energy development. Last year, President Trump took an aggressive stance on renewable energy, going so far as to pause the leases for large-scale offshore wind projects. In response, the bill tries to create some certainty for energy developers, by limiting the changes the federal government can make to permits after they’re issued, even if environmental regulations have changed since then.
“These two provisions operating together—no injunctions by a court and no ability to pull these permits back—would basically allow President Trump to have unfettered discretion to lock in a lot of extractive activity with very little or no meaningful public involvement on his way out the door between now and 2028,” Winter said.
The bill would also significantly alter the National Historic Preservation Act—specifically Section 106, which outlines the process of the federal government engaging Native American tribes as sovereign nations.
Wesley Furlong, staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, said BAAJA’s passage would be a huge blow to tribal sovereignty, and would undermine the government to government relationship between the U.S. and tribes.
He said BAAJA essentially does away with the process of tribal consultation on projects that may affect important sacred sites.
“The process very generally goes from this very robust stepwise consultative process to the agency just writing a report, giving it to the tribe and saying, ‘You have 45 days to comment and give us any information you have and then we're going to move on,’” he said.
“It is not consultation. It is almost like a notice and comment process.”
It would also remove the requirement for federal agencies to meaningfully consider tribal input, and gives agencies the discretion to say that an energy project is more important than protecting cultural resources.
Daniel Cordalis, another attorney with NARF, and a member of the Navajo Nation, said that in addition to the NHPA, tribes are also affected by changes to NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
According to the bill summary, BAAJA “narrows the scope of review for water quality certifications, extends the term for permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and limits the time period for review of permits for discharges of dredged or fill materials.” It also seeks to expedite the review of federal permits, including by shortening the timeline for consultation and review on threatened or endangered species.
“The problem with this for tribes is we have legally protected rights—whether they're water and species and land protections—that demand a certain level of recognition and involvement in the processes,” Cordalis said. “They have to be accorded to certain levels of interest and protected under federal law. But those are pretty much reduced, and ignored throughout this bill.”
He said the bill is a solution in search of a problem.
“It's not like tribes are out there being obstructionists or using their authorities in ways that are extremely negative and harmful to project development,” he said. “Tribes are playing by the rules, they're being good permit partners. And so it makes no sense to be creating obstacles and making it harder for tribes to do the thing they’re already good at.”
“It's not just tribes that are getting cut out of this process,” added Furlong. “It is states, it is local governments, and it is also the public. And the bill specifically targets public engagement and prevents members of the public from engaging in this process.”
NARF is calling on Congress to hold the bill until the next Congress is sworn in, allowing for meaningful discussion with Indian Country on what permitting reform could look like. The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation officers has also condemned BAAJA, along with attorneys general from Colorado and New Mexico, among other states.
Some environmental groups have expressed support for the bill, like the Citizens Climate Lobby and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. It’s also garnered a lot of support from members of the renewable energy industry.
In a letter to Congress, renewable energy trade groups wrote that the bill “represents substantial positive reforms to our permitting system, maintaining high environmental standards while providing clear rules for getting energy infrastructure built. BAAJA would help significantly increase clean energy deployment and expand our transmission network to deliver new, affordable, and reliable electricity to the homes and businesses that rely on it.”
BAAJA also has many supporters in the fossil fuels industry, like the American Petroleum Institute (including companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and bp) and the National Mining Association.
Winter said that the process of advancing this bill has been highly unusual. It has not yet had a committee hearing, there’s no legislative history or Senate report. He and other legal scholars said they did not have much time to review manager’s amendments to the bill over the weekend before the Senate voted to invoke cloture on Monday.
“That we would fundamentally undermine all of these bedrock environmental laws that are important to maintaining our quality of life in rural economies… that that would all sail through Congress without any ability for the public to weigh in… it’s really difficult to accept,” he said.
Winter said the results of the recent midterm election changed the political dynamics surrounding BAAJA: voters sent a message that they want big money, corporate interests out of politics.
“And this bill would magnify that access and control for the largest corporate interest in America by a factor of ten, or 100, or 1000,” he said.
He said it’s likely that the Senate will try to pass this bill during its lame duck session before a new Congress is sworn in in January, though it would have to be approved by the House before becoming law.
Copyright 2026 Rocky Mountain Community Radio. This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Aspen Public Radio.
