The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, is set for a Senate vote on November 9 after the midterms. The 417-page bill could speed up approval of energy projects in the US, but it also raises the question of whether emissions would fall or rise.
Permitting reform and federal review
The federal permitting system is meant to protect the environment from industrial pollution tied to large projects such as power plants, transmission lines, and natural-gas pipelines. It is governed by laws that include the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. The process is slow and complicated, and BAAJA tries to change that by narrowing the kinds of projects that need federal permits and by adding deadlines.
The bill is also described as technology neutral. It would open the door to projects involving fossil fuels and renewables, which has produced an unusual mix of support among lawmakers and outside groups.
Support and opposition around the bill
The Senate measure has four sponsors, split evenly between two Republicans and two Democrats. The White House backs it, and its Council of Economic Advisors says the bill would shorten review times and produce economic benefits, including higher GDP.
The American Clean Power Association also supports it, saying its analysis shows the bill could unlock 350 gigawatts of new clean energy for the grid. Some environmental groups oppose it in full or in part. The Natural Resources Defense Council says the transmission provisions could help the grid, while the narrower environmental reviews could harm public and private lands.
Climate advocates have argued for permitting reform for years, saying renewables should benefit more than fossil fuels. Solar and wind are among the cheapest energy sources available today, so the expectation is that if more projects can be built, those technologies are likely to win out on cost.
What early emissions estimates say
Early analyses have tried to measure BAAJA’s emissions effects. Rhodium Group found that in the best-case scenario, the bill would cut economy-wide emissions by 4%, reduce annual energy bills by $78 per household, and add 200 gigawatts of new clean energy by 2040. In the worst case, emissions would stay about the same.
Resources for the Future found that the bill could cut power-sector emissions by 6% by 2041 and save more than $350 billion on system costs by midcentury. Those estimates sit alongside a concern that easier permitting could also lead to more natural-gas plants, especially as data centers put more pressure on the grid and more such projects are announced.
Kircher’s emissions trade-off
Kevin Kircher, an energy modeler and assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue, said the choice is between expanding clean electricity and, as a compromise, expanding fossil fuels. He also modeled the bill’s effects and found that if BAAJA had been in place in 2025, energy-sector emissions would have been higher than the actual baseline. Health and mortality risks tied to air pollution would also have increased.
What happens after the vote
The Senate vote is scheduled for November 9, before the next Congress takes control. The bill was expected to pass the Senate with mostly Republican support if a few Democrats joined in, but the Democratic gains raise uncertainty about its path. Democrats could wait until next year, when they control both chambers. Any eventual deal would still need Trump’s signature, which would limit how much a future bill could change.
Easier permitting would likely mean more clean energy and more natural gas at the same time. Lower prices could increase electricity demand and lead to higher emissions overall.
Licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 International