U.S. Senate leaders are expected to hold an initial vote on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) on November 9, as opposition grows among environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers. The bill is intended to ease permitting delays for energy projects, but critics argue it could accelerate fossil-fuel development and weaken existing avenues for challenging projects.
Four Democratic senators—Tammy Duckworth, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden—wrote to the bill’s co-sponsors saying they doubt President Donald Trump’s administration will honor commitments made during negotiations. They pointed to canceled clean-energy grants and loans and alleged that some decisions were intended to harm states that voted Democratic.
The senators called on the administration to reinstate all canceled awards and provide a written commitment that grant decisions will not be based on the political affiliation of state officials. They have threatened to oppose a motion to proceed with debate if the administration does not comply. Their opposition could complicate efforts to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The White House said it supports the legislation, arguing that it would bring jobs and investment. A spokesperson said the bill’s text has been published and that the administration is speaking with Senate negotiators ahead of a vote. Democratic co-sponsor Sheldon Whitehouse has also voiced concern that the administration could continue to oppose renewable energy even if the bill passes.
A report from research nonprofit Resources for the Future estimates that BAAJA’s power-sector provisions would reduce cumulative carbon dioxide emissions by 1.83 gigatons through 2041. The analysis projects 30 percent more transmission capacity and 60 gigawatts of additional clean-power capacity compared with a scenario without the bill. It also forecasts average annual electricity-system costs 3.5 to 7 percent lower than in that baseline.
The report estimates that emissions in 2041 would be 6 percent below the baseline, although emissions rise over the study period in both scenarios. It also projects a small increase in combined-cycle natural gas plants, an effect expected to diminish over time.
The analysis examines power-sector provisions only. It does not evaluate other measures that have drawn objections, including changes involving the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Report co-author Kevin Rennert said lawmakers should consider a wider range of analyses when assessing the bill’s overall effects.
Environmental groups warn that the proposal could make it easier to build fossil-fuel infrastructure and restrict the ability of future administrations to change course. The debate has also divided clean-energy advocates: some business groups support faster approvals for transmission and renewable projects, while opponents say the bill would remove important safeguards. A coalition of conservative organizations, meanwhile, has urged the Senate to pass it.
Sources: Inside Climate News.