The Bipartisan
American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) is a broad bill designed to reform
permitting of many infrastructure projects, from data centers to pipelines to
interconnection queues for grid approval. It includes improving approval times
and lessening conditions for renewable energy projects, fossil fuel projects,
and more.
Seaver Wang, in an article for the
Ecomodernist, notes that BAAJA unlocks more clean energy than the Trump
administration has blocked, notably the cancellation of offshore wind projects.
He also suggests that the Democrats, rather than focusing on what the
administration will do in its last two years, should take a longer view and
pass the legislation without focusing too much on countering Trump moves. The
bill is expected to be voted on after the midterms.
He points out, as can be seen in
the graph below, that projects both stalled and slow-walked by the
administration amount to only about ten percent of grid decarbonization
capacity needed, according to aggressive decarbonization pathways.
Wang focuses mostly on the
potential clean energy benefits of the bill, which are significant, but there
are benefits for fossil fuel projects as well. Faster permitting timelines help
everyone, and I don’t think they compromise the environment like
environmentalists claim. Their goal is often to deny permitting projects, and
for them, the next best thing to getting a project denied is getting it
delayed. Long permitting times help them in that regard. Shorter permitting
times reduce the period of project uncertainty and risk, which helps companies
plan and execute better.
There may be provisions in the
bill to make it harder to stop projects from being scrapped by the executive
branch once they are permitted. Wang states that nearly 93% of new generation
capacity and energy storage is clean energy. This will result in clean energy
making up about 80% of new generation being clean energy. Apparently, he is
including natural gas as clean energy. The second graph below shows an estimate
of the actual generation expected from these new sources, which is the only
graph of the two that really matters since capacity must be divided by the
average capacity factor, or average utilization rate of each resource. I get
annoyed when energy sources are compared by capacity alone, so it is good he
provides both. I added the third graph, which shows how natural gas utilization
rates have dropped due to being bumped out by renewables, and with some gas
turbine resources used specifically for demand response, especially to follow
and back up renewables. I also added the fourth graph, which compares the
average capacity factors for 2024 and 2025 for each energy source.
The bill contains provisions to
speed up interconnection times, and one way to do that is to speed up
permitting for new high-voltage transmission lines. The graphs below show the
interconnection queue by region and the solar interconnection queue by region
on the map, respectively. The map also shows proposed transmission lines.
Wang notes that the bill is quite
favorable to geothermal energy development, which is fine, but geothermal has
geographical limitations, high costs, and operational issues that limit its
ability to add much to the overall U.S. energy picture in the near and medium
terms.
Long NEPA reviews tend to hamper
and slow all forms of energy and should be shortened considerably. Nuclear
permitting really needs to be streamlined as well. NEPA can also hamper wind
and solar projects. Wang writes:
“At present, a new solar or wind project in the United
States must regularly wait three to four years after submitting an
interconnection request before being able to execute an interconnection
agreement. If sued under NEPA, an energy project might spend a median of three
years before obtaining a court decision that, based on historical data, tends
to uphold the reviewing agency’s original environmental analysis in around 3
out of every 4 cases. Individually, such timespans are already increasingly
exceeding anything the Trump administration could inflict upon the same project
over its remaining tenure.”
He also notes that the Trump
administration push to develop more fossil fuel resources is limited:
“Long lead times for pipelines, offshore oil and gas
exploration, or new coal mines make it increasingly unlikely that the
administration can plan and permit new major ventures before leaving office…”
Of course, BAAJA helps needed
fossil fuel projects as well, and streamlined permitting is really needed for
them.
“Conventional natural gas plants remain key to balancing
and supporting rising renewable energy deployments, with their emissions
falling as they operate less over time—helping manage variable generation until
clean, firm alternatives or carbon capture become sufficiently cheap. In
regions like New England, increased pipeline capacity can still displace
dirtier marine-shipped gas and oil. And it would remain both geopolitically and
environmentally favorable for Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and India to consume
American LNG instead of coal or Russian gas. Indeed, Europe and East Asia
account for over one-half and one-quarter of U.S. LNG exports, while currently
buying 46% and 48% of all Russian LNG exports.”
Environmentalists argue that BAAJA
will increase emissions by benefiting oil & gas projects, but Wang says
that is unlikely. The fact is that we need those projects. Wang ends by again
emphasizing the potential clean energy deployment benefits of BAAJA:
“The remaining immediate energy project anxieties
standing between lawmakers and a successful permitting and transmission package
are small potatoes. Now is the time for Congress to seed a future clean energy
harvest that future generations will thank them for.”
What Do Traditional Environmentalists Say about BAAJA?
Some Democrats are hoping to
reform the bill in their favor after the midterms, assuming they will win and
have more clout after that. That remains to be seen, and in any case majorities
for either party are likely to remain small.
An article in Grist by Jake Bittle
and Austin Corona sums up environmentalists’ approaches:
“On this question, the coalition known as the climate
movement has fractured into two broad groups. On one side, there are activists,
lawyers, and environmentalists, who tend to focus on blocking and reducing
fossil fuel use. On the other, there are renewable energy companies and policy
wonks, who tend to focus on building more clean energy.”
They suggest that a kind of civil
war is erupting between these two factions, one that wants to destroy the
enemy, fossil fuels, and the other that just wants to be able to build more
clean energy. The first faction has clearly benefitted immensely from the
current slow, belabored, and costly nature of current permitting. The second
faction has been significantly hampered by it. The first faction likens it to a
Faustian bargain. That faction has enjoyed way too much power and support in
the past, in my opinion. It would be fitting to see that power cut down a
notch. They call the factions the blockers and the builders.
“It is definitely exposing a potential fault line
between the environmental community and clean energy interests,” said
Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents Northern California, in
an interview with Grist.
Permitting reform has been a long
time coming, and that first faction, which has benefitted immensely from
delaying it, is likely to finally get their comeuppance.
“It’s a lot easier to prevent things from being built
than to build things, and that applies both to fossil fuels and to renewables,”
said Zeke Hausfather, a climate expert at the science nonprofit Berkeley Earth.
In terms of energy affordability,
the blockers have done more to make energy more expensive by blocking needed
pipelines and other fossil fuel projects. However, the builders also make
energy more expensive simply because the full cost of renewables, which
includes fossil fuel back-up and significant transmission and grid integration
costs, is much higher than fossil fuels. Either way, we will likely pay a lot.
However, the best solution is to enable and speed up both kinds of projects in
an “all of the above” kind of strategy, especially in light of growing power
demand and growing costs.
Massive renewable buildout
requires lots of land, and there is often fierce opposition among landowners.
The huge land footprint of renewables makes them more likely to trigger NEPA
reviews.
“A 2025 study found that 64 percent of solar projects,
38 percent of wind projects, and 31 percent of transmission line projects face
NEPA lawsuits.”
BAAJA would make it harder for
these lawsuits to be filed, some of which are frivolous.
“This is a great bill, and it’s a huge step in the right
direction,” said Ray Long, the president of ACORE, a trade group representing
the solar and wind industry. “We need to really put this in reality. We need to
build a ton of stuff over the next four years, or else we’re gonna have higher
[electricity] prices.”
They also note that the bill makes
it harder for the executive branch of the government to block projects, citing
Biden’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline and his LNG pause and Trump’s
scrapping of offshore wind projects.
It is a simple fact that many of
the best sites for U.S. solar and especially wind are not near power
consumption centers. Thus, there is a need for transmission lines, and those
are very hard to permit and get built. Making it easier certainly helps the
clean energy industries and gives our power grid more options.
“Historically, it didn’t matter too much where power
plants were located, so we built them close to where the power was needed,”
said Chirag Lala, vice president of research and chief economist at the Center
for Public Enterprise, a think tank. “But we don’t have that same luxury with
clean energy, which can be very location-specific. If you’re going to rely on
those resources, you have to ship the power over long distances.”
“BAAJA would force utilities and regional grid operators
to plan for interregional transmission lines, and would let private developers
(like the one behind SunZia) come in and build lines themselves if utilities
don’t build enough. The bill would also clear away a number of procedural
roadblocks that have allowed utilities to block interregional transmission.”
The hardcore environmentalists
cite tribal sacred sites (sometimes taking up huge swaths of American land) and
endangered species concerns that would be compromised.
The article notes that the larger
environmental groups like Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the
Nature Conservancy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council support the bill,
while the smaller and often more radical ones do not support it. They are the
ones who are firmly in the blocker camp. I am quite firmly in the builder camp.
Clearly, building needed infrastructure is more beneficial than blocking it.
Building will aid affordability much more than blocking. The environmental
impacts are overblown in many cases, and energy projects of all types continue
to get better at protecting the environment, in general.
References:
The
bipartisan energy bill tearing the climate movement apart: A long-awaited
permitting reform proposal would make renewables easier to build, but at a
potential cost to communities and the environment. Jake Bittle and Austin
Corona. Grist. October 8, 2026. The bipartisan energy bill tearing
the climate movement apart | Grist
The
permitting reform omnibus just dropped. Heatmap AM. October 1, 2026.
Permitting
Reform Unlocks More Clean Energy Than Trump Blocks: The Long View on BAAJA. Seaver
Wang. The Ecomodernist. October 8, 2026.
Permitting Reform Unlocks More Clean
Energy Than Trump Blocks
Electric
Power Monthly: Table 6.07.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators
Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels. EIA. September 26, 2026. Electric Power Monthly - U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA)
