Congress has a historic opportunity to overhaul America's permitting system. But beyond the headlines, what would the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) actually change?
The bill targets obstacles throughout the permitting process that can delay critical infrastructure, drive up construction costs and ultimately affect the price consumers pay for energy.
Here's a closer look at four problems BAAJA would address and how the proposed reforms in the legislation would work.
The problem: Before many major energy projects can be permitted and built, they must undergo a federal review that analyzes their potential environmental impact.
Federal law sets deadlines for completing certain environmental reviews, but finishing a review does not mean a project has received all the authorizations needed to move forward. Projects can still wait months for federal agencies to make those final decisions, creating uncertainty that can delay construction, increase costs and make it harder for companies to secure financing, hire workers and plan projects.
How BAAJA would fix it: BAAJA would establish clear deadlines for federal decisions after environmental analysis is completed. The lead agency would generally have 45 days to formally issue its decision, while other federal agencies would generally face 90-or-120-day deadlines to decide on remaining authorizations.
Why it matters: Clear timelines for final permitting decisions could reduce delay and costs, give companies greater certainty to plan construction and provide a clearer path for needed energy infrastructure to come online sooner.
The problem: Before many energy projects can receive federal permits, states must certify that they meet water-quality requirements under the Clean Water Act.
But in some cases, states have denied these certifications based on concerns entirely unrelated to water quality. Because a denied certification can prevent the federal government from issuing the required permit, a decision in one state can hold up an entire interstate project.
How BAAJA would fix it: For interstate natural gas pipelines and certain electric-transmission projects, BAAJA would more clearly tie these reviews to applicable water-quality standards. States could still require safeguards or deny certification if those standards aren't met.
Why it matters: These denials can put years of planning and investment at risk, increase project costs and delay infrastructure needed to deliver energy to consumers. Clearer standards could reduce that uncertainty while preserving states' authority to protect water quality.
The problem: Even after a federal agency approves an energy project, legal challenges on the agency’s actions can be brought years later. In some cases, challengers can raise objections in court they did not raise during the original public-comment process — when those concerns could have been addressed before a final decision.
How BAAJA would fix it: BAAJA would require most legal challenges to be filed within 150 days after a government agency approves a project. If there was an opportunity for public comment, challengers would also need to have raised their concerns there, allowing for concerns to be addressed before a lawsuit.
Why it matters: Raising concerns earlier provides an opportunity to resolve problems before projects are approved. And clearer deadlines for legal challenges would give companies greater certainty to invest in and build approved projects, while preserving the public's ability to challenge unlawful decisions in court.
The problem: When a court finds an error in a federal agency's environmental review, it can invalidate the project's permit, even if the agency could correct the mistake.
For example, an agency might not have adequately explained part of its environmental analysis. If a court vacates a project’s authorization or orders construction to stop, workers can be idled and contracts and financing can be disrupted while the agency fixes the problem.
How BAAJA would fix it: When courts find certain violations of federal environmental review law, BAAJA generally directs courts to send the matter back to the agency for correction without automatically vacating the project’s authorization. The agency would have up to 180 days to fix the problem, and the permit would remain in effect during that time, subject to limited exceptions.
Why it matters: Agencies would still be required to follow the law and correct their mistakes. But a correctable error would not, by itself, automatically undo a project authorization, helping avoid costly construction disruptions and delays in delivering needed infrastructure.
Permitting delays and uncertainty can drive up the cost of building infrastructure and postpone projects that could help make energy more affordable.
BAAJA would establish clearer rules and greater certainty throughout the permitting process while preserving environmental protections, public participation and judicial oversight. Following the Senate’s procedural vote to advance the bill, Congress needs to finish the job and send BAAJA to President Trump’s desk this year. Durable permitting reform is an opportunity to answer voters’ demand for lower costs by making it easier to build the energy infrastructure Americans need.
