The Senate moved forward with legislation that would reshape federal permitting, setting deadlines for agency decisions and changing environmental and endangered species reviews that can affect farms, ranches and public lands.
Senators voted 62-21 Nov. 10 to begin consideration of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), following a 73-25 procedural vote Nov. 9. Neither vote constituted final passage, according to Senate records.
The action followed the Nov. 7 release of a manager’s substitute amendment by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The revisions address concerns raised since the bill’s September introduction.
Kaitlynn Glover, executive director of the Public Lands Council (PLC) and executive director of natural resources for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), told WLJ the groups sought reforms beyond energy projects, including grazing permits and post-fire recovery. She said changes to endangered species consultation, historic preservation and environmental reviews address longstanding permitting problems ranchers face across federal agencies.
NEPA and delays
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), a Washington-based nonprofit policy organization, said BAAJA would narrow which projects would require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and establish deadlines for decisions.
Existing law gives agencies one year to complete an environmental assessment and two years for an environmental impact statement. BAAJA would also set deadlines for the decisions that follow: 45 days to issue a formal decision after an impact statement, followed by 90 days for remaining approvals from agencies involved in the review and 120 days for other agencies.
Glover said overlapping requirements and years of piecemeal updates have made permitting harder to navigate. NEPA should guide agencies in reviewing a project’s environmental effects without dictating whether it moves forward, she said, so “the process isn’t the reason that we stop.”
BAAJA would give parties 150 days to challenge a NEPA review and require agencies to correct flawed reviews while leaving project approvals in place. Glover said those changes could reduce delays caused by threatened lawsuits, though she acknowledged that livestock producers also rely on courts to protect their interests.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), in a Farm Bureau Intel report, supports more predictable environmental reviews for agricultural operations and federal land management.
ESA and historic preservation
BAAJA would shorten the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) standard consultation period from 90 to 60 days. Agencies would need an applicant’s consent to extend consultation to 100 days or longer, rather than the current 150 days. Qualified states could handle consultations, but applicants could choose federal review instead.
Historic preservation reviews would generally take place alongside NEPA reviews, rather than adding another step afterward. The manager’s amendment strengthens consultation with Tribes and gives consulting parties 45 days to raise substantive objections to agency reports. The bill would also narrow which projects require historic preservation review, excluding some routine work and projects whose only federal involvement is financial assistance.
Glover said meaningful parameters for ESA permitting and consultation have long been livestock industry priorities. She also welcomed clearer historic preservation procedures, saying preservation matters but reviews sometimes fail to reflect conditions on the ground. Clear expectations for engaging state historic preservation officers and stakeholders, along with consultation deadlines, are important, she said.
AFBF welcomes historic preservation exclusions affecting projects whose only federal involvement is a loan, loan guarantee or cost-share assistance, including USDA farm loans.
Energy projects
BAAJA would expand transmission planning and speed grid connections. Data centers would cover associated transmission costs, while communities could receive assistance evaluating energy, water and infrastructure demands, according to BPC.
AFBF warns that giving federal regulators more authority over transmission projects could put more landowners at risk of eminent domain and weaken their bargaining power in easement negotiations. The group also says the bill does not require developers to avoid productive farmland or meet standards for restoring agricultural land after construction.
Glover said PLC and NCBA remain opposed to eminent domain in these scenarios. Members are concerned about converting prime agricultural land, and improving permitting should not create additional opportunities to force that conversion.
Glover said a faster permitting process should not give any type of project an advantage. As members raise concerns about data centers on federal lands, she said PLC and NCBA remain focused on protecting multiple use, including livestock grazing.
According to BPC, BAAJA would limit state and Tribal reviews under the Clean Water Act to specific water-quality requirements. Reviews would have to be completed within one year, or nine months for qualifying interstate pipelines and transmission lines.
AP reported that sponsors remain optimistic about passing the bill through both chambers before the current Congress ends. Whitehouse said President Donald Trump’s support should help move it toward a House vote. However, AP reported that Democratic election gains could encourage lawmakers to wait for legislation placing greater limits on fossil fuel expansion.
Glover described motivated senators from both parties but said House concerns and limited time leave the outcome uncertain. She said she is “hopeful” but “far from certain” the bill will pass. Success will depend on Senate sponsors and House counterparts resolving sticking points before the session ends, she said. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
